Sandra Finley

2013-04-19 The student who caught out the profs, BBC

Economy / Political Economy, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Take back the University No Responses »

May 092013

The mistakes revealed this week in a celebrated paper by two eminent economists, were spotted by a student – Thomas Herndon of the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

” . . . but it (the mistakes made) provides an intellectual rationalisation for things that affect how people think about the world,” . . . “And how people think about the world, especially politicians, eventually affects how the world works.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/magazine-22223190

By Ruth Alexander

BBC News

This week, economists have been astonished to find that a famous academic paper often used to make the case for austerity cuts contains major errors. Another surprise is that the mistakes, by two eminent Harvard professors, were spotted by a student doing his homework.

By Ruth Alexander BBC News

It’s 4 January 2010, the Marriott Hotel in Atlanta. At the annual meeting of the American Economic Association, Professor Carmen Reinhart and the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Ken Rogoff, are presenting a research paper called Growth in a Time of Debt.

At a time of economic crisis, their finding resonates – economic growth slows dramatically when the size of a country’s debt rises above 90% of Gross Domestic Product, the overall size of the economy.

Word about this paper spread. Policymakers wanted to know more.

And so did student Thomas Herndon. His professors at the University of Massachusetts Amherst had set his graduate class an assignment – pick an economics paper and see if you can replicate the results. It’s a good exercise for aspiring researchers.

Thomas chose Growth in a Time of Debt. It was getting a lot of attention, but intuitively, he says, he was dubious about its findings.

Some key figures tackling the global recession found this paper a useful addition to the debate at the heart of which is this key question: is it best to let debt increase in the hope of stimulating economic growth to get out of the slump, or is it better to cut spending and raise taxes aggressively to get public debt under control?

EU commissioner Olli Rehn and influential US Republican politician Paul Ryan have both quoted a 90% debt-to-GDP limit to support their austerity strategies.

But while US politicians were arguing over whether to inject more stimulus into the economy, the euro was creaking under the strain of forced austerity, and a new coalition government in the UK was promising to raise taxes and cut spending to get the economy under control – Thomas Herndon’s homework assignment wasn’t going well.

No matter how he tried, he just couldn’t replicate Reinhart and Rogoff’s results.

“My heart sank,” he says. “I thought I had likely made a gross error. Because I’m a student the odds were I’d made the mistake, not the well-known Harvard professors.”

His professors were also sure he must be doing something wrong.

“I remember I had a meeting with my professor, Michael Ash, where he basically said, ‘Come on, Tom, this isn’t too hard – you just gotta go sort this out.'”

So Herndon checked his work, and checked again.

By the end of the semester, when he still hadn’t cracked the puzzle, his supervisors realised something was up.

“We had this puzzle that we were unable to replicate the results that Reinhart-Rogoff published,” Prof Ash, says. “And that really got under our skin. That was really a mystery for us.”

So Ash and his colleague Prof Robert Pollin encouraged Herndon to continue the project and to write to the Harvard professors. After some correspondence, Reinhart and Rogoff provided Thomas with the actual working spreadsheet they’d used to obtain their results.

“Everyone says seeing is believing, but I almost didn’t believe my eyes,” he says.

Thomas called his girlfriend over to check his eyes weren’t deceiving him.

But no, he was correct – he’d spotted a basic error in the spreadsheet. The Harvard professors had accidentally only included 15 of the 20 countries under analysis in their key calculation (of average GDP growth in countries with high public debt).

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Denmark were missing.

Oops.

Herndon and his professors found other issues with Growth in a Time of Debt, which had an even bigger impact on the famous result. The first was the fact that for some countries, some data was missing altogether.

Reinhart and Rogoff say that they were assembling the data series bit by bit, and at the time they presented the paper for the American Economic Association conference, good quality data on post-war Canada, Australia and New Zealand simply weren’t available. Nevertheless, the omission made a substantial difference.

Thomas and his supervisors also didn’t like the way that Reinhart and Rogoff averaged their data. They say one bad year for a small country like New Zealand, was blown out of proportion because it was given the same weight as, for example, the UK’s nearly 20 years with high public debt.

Prof Michael Ash told the story to Tim Harford on this week’s More or Less – you can listen to the programme on BBC Radio 4 and the World Service, or download the free podcast (Please go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/magazine-22223190 to obtain the link.)

“New Zealand’s single year, 1951, at -8% growth is held up with the same weight as Britain’s nearly 20 years in the high public debt category at 2.5% growth,” Michael Ash says.

“I think that’s a mistaken way to examine these data.”

There’s no black and white here, because there are also downsides to the obvious alternatives. But still, it’s controversial and it, too, made a big difference.

All these results were published by Thomas Herndon and his professors on 15 April, as a draft working paper. They find that high levels of debt are still correlated with lower growth – but the most spectacular results from the Reinhart and Rogoff paper disappear. High debt is correlated with somewhat lower growth, but the relationship is much gentler and there are lots of exceptions to the rule.

Greece is an example of a country with high debt that has suffered a slump

Reinhart and Rogoff weren’t available to be interviewed, but they did provide the BBC with a statement.

In it, they said: “We are grateful to Herndon et al. for the careful attention to our original Growth in a Time of Debt AER paper and for pointing out an important correction to Figure 2 of that paper. It is sobering that such an error slipped into one of our papers despite our best efforts to be consistently careful. We will redouble our efforts to avoid such errors in the future. We do not, however, believe this regrettable slip affects in any significant way the central message of the paper or that in our subsequent work.”

Accidents do happen, and science progresses through the identification of previous mistakes. But was this a particularly expensive mistake?

“I don’t think jobs were destroyed because of this but it provides an intellectual rationalisation for things that affect how people think about the world,” says Daniel Hamermesh, professor of economics at Royal Holloway, University of London.

“And how people think about the world, especially politicians, eventually affects how the world works.”

Discovering a spreadsheet error was never going to end the debate over austerity – and nor should it, according to Megan McArdle, special correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

“There is other research showing that you can have these slowdowns when you get to high levels of debt,” she says. “We have a very vivid [example] in Greece.”

Thomas Herndon ‘s view is that austerity policies are counter-productive. But right now he’s delighted that the first academic paper he’s ever published has made such a splash.

“I feel really honoured to have made a contribution to the policy discussion,” he says.

2011-09-22 Chasing Water: Colorado River running near empty, 12:25 minute video

Resource depletion (water in USA) 1 Response »

May 082013

We have been following the situation with the Colorado River for years. It is the water source for 30 million people; 30% of the American agricultural output (food, fruits and vegetables that Canadians also import) is from fields irrigated by the River. The Americans will be looking to take water from Canada if (when) the River runs dry. I spoke with the Scripps Institute in 2009 – the lead researcher was pessimistic – – the steps being taken to avert disaster are completely inadequate.

Please click on Resource depletion (water in USA) (under category “Peace or Violence”) to generate a list of the postings. “Last Call at the Oasis” is an important addition, 2012.)

2011 UPDATE:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/video_colorado_river_running_near_empty/2443/

Photographer Peter McBride traveled along the Colorado River from its source high in the Rocky Mountains to its historic mouth at the Sea of Cortez. In this Yale Environment 360 video, he follows the natural course of the Colorado by raft, on foot, and overhead in a small plane, telling the story of a river whose water is siphoned off at every turn, leaving it high and dry 80 miles from the sea.

In the video, McBride, a Colorado native, documents how increasing water demands have transformed the river that is the lifeblood for an arid Southwest.

2013-05-07 Oral presentation to U of S, Board of Governors, this morning. Includes critique of “Global Institute for Food Security” and rule of law re Board membership.

Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Take back the University 4 Responses »

May 072013

(The last part of the address challenges the “Global Institute for Food Security” recently established at the University. Scroll down to pink high-lighting.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I appreciate the opportunity to address you. Many thanks.

You will understand that in 10 minutes I cannot provide the accolades due to the University. And I can only address one or two matters.

You have a copy of the material I submitted on April 8th. The concluding line reads:

Please explain how it is that Susan Milburn can, within the rule of law, serve as Chair of the Board and until 2016.

In the time since that submission to you, the University did make a response, through the Meeting of Senate on April 20th. I will get to that.

First, let me quickly run over the issue: The University Act sets out limitations on Board tenure. The person elected by Senate may serve two 3-year terms. Susan Milburn was elected in 2006; her term expired June 30th 2012. But the Board established her as Chair until 2016.

The Board of Governors took steps well in advance of 2012 to see that Milburn would be able to remain on the Board past the legislated departure date. They undertook to get the Provincial Govt to change the University Act. It didn’t happen.

They put forward Milburn’s name to the Provincial Govt, requesting that she be a Government Appointment to the Board. The Government declined. One of you wouldn’t likely be here, if they had agreed!

I don’t have anything against Susan Milburn. I don’t know her. My interest is in sound governance. In a democracy that means upholding the rule of law.

In this case of tenure on the Board of Governors which required that the Board and the Senate (the legal phrase is) “intentionally, actively and knowingly circumvent the Act”, – – – following my submission to you (Apr 8), I spoke with the Office of the Deputy Minister of Justice. They recorded the details and referred me to Phoebe, office of the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education (responsible for the administration of the University Act).

(CORRECTION: I spoke with the Government Departments BEFORE, not after, sending the submission to the University. It was April 5th.)

My reading of the conversation was that the Department was nervous. Phoebe was most interested in knowing how widespread was the dissension. I was frankly chagrined by such a response.

Coming now to the University’s arguments, as presented to Senate, April 20:

One of the lawyers I sought input from is Bill Hood. He pointed out that it’s The Senate that is responsible for Susan Milburn’s position on the Board, and further that the Senate does not have the authority to extend her stay. It is not a question that Senate can even vote on – it’s a point of order – Senate would be acting ultra vires of its authority.

This is a position I understand and I provided it to Senate, approximately with this wording:

“The rule of law means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governors or governed, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and (critically) no one can grant exemption to the application of the law. “The rules must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply them – that is, to the government as well as the governed. (Repeat) Nobody has the power to grant exceptions.”

As I understand the rebuttal provided by the University:

A. The lawyers I consulted say Milburn’s stay until 2016 is outside the law. The University lawyers’ opinion is the opposite.

B. In the past there have been others who stayed on the Board well beyond the limitation periods. The precedent has been set (the precedent to operate outside the law?!)

C. The Government is going to change the University Act in the upcoming fall sitting. The University now has a letter from the Govt to that effect.

After the Senate meeting I spoke again with Bill Hood, and others with legal training. There was laughter. One response was “Yes I’ve driven over the speed limit. Doesn’t mean that it’s legal.”

That is the substance of the arguments.

But all of that said, I did not come here to argue the law.

I came to establish a relationship with you. You are part of the governing structure, as am I (albeit I am subject to re-election!). We have similar goals. We will all accomplish more, if we are working together. Resorting to legal action as a replacement for dialogue is a failure of our human faculties.

Let me explain my motivation: my children know that the world they are inheriting is substantially degraded, with very serious consequences. And it is largely my generation that bears responsibility for the degradation.

I don’t feel guilty about that. Because my children know that I am doing my utmost to help bring about change.

I think you are most likely the same as me in that you are motivated by the interests of your children and grandchildren. They will likely remember you. But when you are working in the public sphere, it is not just in THEIR memory.

Public defenders of old ideas go on record as such. Secretaries and Historians record our decisions. Writers like Pierre Burton documented the Great Depression and excoriated the dinosaurs in public office who defended old ideas, inhumane ideas and grand stupidity. These people and their deeds are remembered because they worked in the public sphere as you and I do.

In addition, if WE KNEW BETTER than to do what we did, our names will reap the derision of future generations. I don’t want to have my name and thereby my children’s names linked with failure to make necessary changes because I took the easy road of conformity and comfort.

I encourage us all to play an active role in the governance of the University. That is our job. The University must set high standards. Operating blatantly outside the rule of law does not cut it. Defending unconscionable conflicts-of-interest degrades the University’s reputation. Golden parachutes undermine public support.

The University is no place for making deals, and making friends at the expense of integrity – at the expense of truth so far as we are able to establish truth.

(CHALLENGE TO GLOBAL INSTITUTE FOR FOOD SECURITY)

In closing, I draw to your attention another dinosaur the University is establishing, the Global Institute for Food Security. It is another example where the University is being used by the Government and industry to funnel public money for corporate purposes which are at odds with the public interest.

Let me explain: I have a longer life-experience than all of you! I grew up in rural Saskatchewan; I lived relatively close to Nature, camped outdoors a lot, helped in the fields from a young age.

The changes I have seen over my lifetime are very threatening AND they are the result of industrialized, chemical/biotech agriculture, as taught at the University. I attended a lecture in January at the Johnson-Shoyama School of Public Policy in order to understand the line that would likely be pursued at the Global Institute for Food Security.

The concept of food “security” comes down the line from “homeland security”, military and corporate interests, the undermining and removal of democratic principles.

People understand that “Food sovereignty” is in the public interest, it comes down the line from sovereignty as in Quebec, self-determination as in First Nations, democracy movements like the Arab Spring to “take back” sovereignty.

“Food security” is about corporate ownership of seeds, our FOOD supply engineered by the criterion of its ability to survive applications of poisons. Forget about agriculture’s contribution to healthy ecosystems, to water supplies that are not poisoned, and to a reduction in childhood cancers and developmental problems.

I mentioned the changes over my lifetime. The changes to the soil (the accumulated poisons mean the life in it is gone, and there is no humous); the changes to the wildlife (the song birds like the meadow larks and others are about gone – you rarely hear them today); and the changes to the health of people indicate that we have made expensive mistakes in the field of agriculture.

We have normalized cancers, developmental problems, and infertility. I have lived long enough to know another time: these disease levels are NOT NORMAL. 50 years and researchers are still diddling around with “finding a cure”, passing off “early detection” of disease as dealing with cause, when we know what carcinogens and teratogens do and are doing.

Instead of changing our ways we develop a coterie of “professionals” and whole industries around the problems. The status quo becomes further entrenched.

A communications consultant told me he is one of 4 in the Research Department at the U of S. I asked further and was told that there are more than a hundred communication consultants employed by the University (I can’t vouch for the veracity of the number). Communication consultants are used to convince ourselves that we are progressive and grand. While we plough the money into worn-out ideas from yesterday that serve the people of Saskatchewan badly.

I think we can do better. There are exciting things happening in the world. Don’t dismiss Occupy, the demonstrations in Quebec, or Idle No More. Movements build one on the other. On May 25^th people around the whole planet are marching against Monsanto (chem/biotech agriculture to serve corporate interests). I say “bless them”. And I ask On whose side is the University?

Thank-you for your time.

2013-05-03 Anthropology students face abuse, even rape, at field sites. Globe & Mail

Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Take back the University 1 Response »

May 042013

The online survey has been broadened to include other field-based sciences, Dr. Clancy said. It remains open until May 10.

I (Sandra speaking) receive reports of abuse in the University realm because of the work I do. I will ensure that people I know are alerted to this survey (page 1 of the survey is appended). I hope you will, too.

I have thought of a web-page where affected people in Canada could anonymously tell their experience. Maybe this is a better, or a first step?

It is an extremely serious situation on University campuses, intolerable. It needs to be addressed. Young people should be safe in their studies, and the University should be a model for integrity.

RELATED: 2013-04-18 Saskatchewan Senator reflects on racism and discrimination (Senator Lillian Dyck continues to play a supporting role for persons subjected to exploitative behaviour in the University.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Hi, Sandra, Saturday morning, and I have been reading the Globe and Mail which contains an article on students and abuse, particularly sexual abuse, in particular at field sites.

Power differentials between mentors and students and the abuse of power underlies that form of abuse, as well as the plagiarism and research integrity offences in my opinion.

(INSERT: reference to such things as professors who publish student research as their own, with no acknowledgement to the student. The students are often quite powerless to have the matter addressed, for obvious reasons.)

Professor Kathryn Clancy professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois is doing research involving an on-line blog.

She recommends reform of codes of ethics to reign in the problem.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

THE GLOBE & MAIL ARTICLE

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/anthropology-students-face-abuse-even-rape-at-field-sites/article11716180/

IVAN SEMENIUK – SCIENCE REPORTER

The Globe and Mail

As the academic year winds down, scores of anthropology students across the country are preparing for an important ritual: heading off to a remote location to conduct research in the field.

For many, the chance to dig for fossils in a far corner of the globe or observe primates in the wild is a dream come true – a coveted, even essential step on the road to an academic career.

But for some, the opportunity can become an unhappy ordeal, filled with experiences that range from feelings of exclusion by colleagues to harassment, abuse and, in extreme cases, sexual assault.

So says a team of U.S. researchers behind an online survey on anthropology fieldwork experiences. Several Canadians have responded to the confidential survey, which has been advertised through social media and anthropology websites. Initial findings were presented last month at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

“It’s not that people don’t know about it, it’s that we’ve all felt really powerless to know what to do about it,” said Kathryn Clancy, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who led the survey.

Prof. Clancy said she was alerted to the issue when a friend told of being raped at a field site – and the barriers she encountered when seeking action.

Once Prof. Clancy began exploring the subject in blog posts, “the floodgates opened,” she said, as more people sought her out to relate their experiences. Together with three colleagues, she decided a more systematic approach was needed to determine what factors might make a given anthropological field site more likely to be a risky venue for students and young scientists.

The team has received 536 responses in less than three months since the survey began, with a smaller number participating in follow-up phone interviews.

In a preliminary analysis of the first 124 responses, nearly 60 per cent said they had experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks while working at an anthropological field site, while 18 per cent said they had experienced physical sexual harassment or unwanted sexual contact – in some cases up to and including rape. The harassment was reported by both men and women, with younger female researchers the most frequent victims.

By design, the survey could not address the question of how prevalent such incidents may be. Nevertheless, Prof. Clancy said, the survey suggests the profession needs to address the issue.

“It highlights the need to bring this out into the open,” said Katherine MacKinnon, a primatologist at Saint Louis University. Dr. MacKinnon added that among the survey’s more disturbing findings is that a victim is more likely to be harassed by a superior than by a peer or someone unaffiliated with the academic work at a site.

“Power differentials between mentors and students and the abuse of power is something we should all be thinking about,” said Tina Moffat, president of the Canadian Association of Physical Anthropologists and an associate professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Moffat said harassment in the field has not been an issue on the association’s agenda thus far, but added that “we will consider it this summer” when the association puts together an ethics statement for its members.

Most researchers and graduate students in anthropology will spend time working at field sites or at field schools over the course of their training, but Canadian anthropology departments vary in how much they prepare students and staff for potential problems in the field. Some have developed safety protocols that specifically cover inappropriate behaviour. Others consider field sites to be an extension of the campus and governed by the same code of conduct. However, this may not equip young researchers to deal with problems they encounter at sites that are not run by their home institutions.

In their survey, Dr. Clancy and her colleagues found that inappropriate behaviour was more likely to arise at smaller, less formal work sites where codes of conduct might not be spelled out or enforced.

“Figuring out how to make really transparent reporting procedures at all field sites would be a possible next step,” said Heather Shattuck-Heidorn, a graduate student in human evolutionary biology at Harvard University who chaired the session at which Dr. Clancy presented her findings.

Yet there are signs that those who experience or are aware of harassment are inhibited about reporting it because doing so could jeopardize their careers. Prof. Clancy described the toll on one male researcher who was interviewed for the survey: “It was almost unbearable for him because he had witnessed such systematic sexual assault at his site and for years had not spoken up because he was so afraid that his dissertation would be shut down.”

The online survey has been broadened to include other field-based sciences, Dr. Clancy said. It remains open until May 10.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

https://illinois.edu/sb/sec/34550

THE ON-LINE SURVEY

Thank you for your interest in our survey. The Biological Anthropology Field Experiences Web Survey is designed to solicit input on the ways in which fieldwork does or does not provide a safe scholarly and research environment for all. Rather than determining the total number of instances, or percentage risk of a negative experience, our interest is in gathering stories to inform Field Directors, faculty mentors, and other researchers on the scope of the problem, and identify some of the main contributory factors to a negative environment, both to encourage improvement and to identify future areas for research.
What you will do
By hitting “next,” you give informed consent to participate in our internet survey. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability. You can decide to end participation at any time, or not answer certain questions. We will keep your responses anonymous and your identities confidential to only the four principal investigators listed below. In any in person, in print, or on line reporting, publishing, or presenting of the data we collect from this survey all personal identifiers will be expunged. This survey and the server on which we will be storing your results are data encrypted, in order to ensure your answers are safe with us.
In order to confirm identities and make sure participants only fill out the survey once, we will ask for your email address and you will get a confirmation of completion of your survey at that address. We are interested in following up by phone with a random sub-sample of participants to hear your stories, and if you indicate you would be willing to be considered, we will additionally ask you to check a box so that we can initiate contact. You will also have the chance to check a box at the conclusion of the study to enter you into a lottery for a 1:10 chance to win a $25 Amazon gift card. You can check this box regardless of how much or how little of the survey you completed.
Risks
Please note that we will be asking about sexual harassment or assault experiences you may have had in the past, albeit in a general way. These questions may be triggering, and stimulation of these memories may make you uncomfortable. If you are at all worried that thinking about or sharing your experiences about sexual harassment or assault would be too mentally harmful, do not continue with this survey.
Benefits
We hope the results of this research will stimulate a broader conversation about mentoring, fieldwork, and support of students and peers. We believe this research has enormous benefit to the discipline, as creating a safer space for research will encourage more diverse people to pursue science, and more diverse perspectives.

For more information

This human subjects research was approved by the University of Illinois Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions about this project, please contact the primary investigator Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, at 217-244-1509 or via email at kclancy@illinois.edu.

If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this study or any concerns or complaints, please contact the University of Illinois Institutional Review Board at 217-333-2670 (collect calls will be accepted if you identify yourself as a research participant) or via email at irb@illinois.edu.

Again, thank you so much for your willingness to participate in our project.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Clancy, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Katie Hinde, Assistant Professor, Harvard University Robin Nelson, Assistant Professor, University of California Riverside Julienne Rutherford, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois Chicago

2013-02-14 Canada’s environmental activists seen as ‘threat to national security’, The Guardian

Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism, Secret Police No Responses »

May 042013

2013-05-03 The FBI has gone berzerk. Former Black Panther Assata Shakur put on Most Wanted Terrorists List. Shakur in her own words, Democracy Now.

Economy / Political Economy, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Peace or Violence, Solidarity with the Warriors No Responses »

May 032013

This is shocking.

Democracy Now (Amy Goodman) provides good coverage.

For those too young to know, the first link contains the background and “Assata Shakur in her own words“.

http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2013/5/3/assata_shakur_in_her_own_words

The second link is the continuation of the discussion with

Shakur’s lawyer and
Angela Davis.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/3/angela_davis_and_assata_shakurs_lawyer

The FBI has added the former Black Panther Assata Shakur to its Most Wanted Terrorists list 40 years after the killing for which she was convicted. Born Joanne Chesimard, Shakur was found guilty of shooting dead a New Jersey state trooper during a gunfight in 1973. Shakur has long proclaimed her innocence and accused federal authorities of political persecution. She escaped from prison in 1979 and received political asylum in Cuba. On Thursday, she became the first woman added to the FBI’s terrorist list, and the reward for her capture was doubled to $2 million.

We begin our coverage by airing Shakur’s reading of an open letter she wrote to Pope John Paul II during his trip to Cuba in 1998 after the FBI asked him to urge her extradition. “As a result of being targeted by [the FBI program] COINTELPRO, I was faced with the threat of prison, underground, exile or death,” Shakur said at the time. “I am not the first, nor the last, person to be victimized by the New Jersey system of ‘justice.’ The New Jersey State Police are infamous for their racism and brutality.” Hear Shakur read the letter in full on SoundCloud. Click here to watch our interview about her case with scholar and activist Angela Davis and Lennox Hinds, her longtime attorney.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today’s show looking at the case of Assata Shakur, a legendary figure within the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army. On Thursday, she became the first woman ever to make the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list. In addition, the FBI and the state of New Jersey doubled the reward for her capture to $2 million.

Shakur was convicted in the May 2nd, 1973, killing of a New Jersey state trooper during a shootout that left one of her fellow activists dead. She was shot twice by police during the incident. In 1979, she managed to escape from jail, and she later fled to Cuba where she received political asylum. She has long proclaimed her innocence.

On Thursday, FBI Special Agent Aaron Ford spoke at a press conference announcing Shakur’s placement on the Most Wanted Terrorists list. He refers to Shakur as Joanne Chesimard, her original name.

AARON FORD: Openly and freely in Cuba, she continues to maintain and promote her terrorist ideology. She provides anti-U.S. government speeches espousing the Black Liberation Army message of revolution and terrorism. No person, no matter what his or her political or moral convictions are, is above the law. Joanne Chesimard is a domestic terrorist who murdered a law enforcement officer, execution-style.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s FBI Special Agent Aaron Ford. In a moment, we’ll be joined by two guests: the scholar and activist Angela Davis, who faced her own murder trial decades ago, and Lennox Hinds, Assata Shakur’s longtime attorney for some 40 years. But first we turn to Assata Shakur in her own words. In 1998, Democracy Now! aired her reading an open letter to Pope John Paul II during his trip to Cuba. She wrote the message after New Jersey state troopers sent the pope a letter asking him to call for her extradition.

ASSATA SHAKUR: My name is Assata Shakur, and I was born and raised in the United States. I am a descendant of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the Americas as slaves. I spent my early childhood in the racist segregated South. I later moved to the northern part of the country, where I realized that Black people were equally victimized by racism and oppression.

I grew up and became a political activist, participating in student struggles, the anti-war movement, and, most of all, in the movement for the liberation of African Americans in the United States. I later joined the Black Panther Party, an organization that was targeted by the COINTELPRO program, a program that was set up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to eliminate all political opposition to the U.S. government’s policies, to destroy the Black Liberation Movement in the United States, to discredit activists and to eliminate potential leaders.

Under the COINTELPRO program, many political activists were harassed, imprisoned, murdered or otherwise neutralized. As a result of being targeted by COINTELPRO, I, like many other young people, was faced with the threat of prison, underground, exile or death. The FBI, with the help of local police agencies, systematically fed false accusations and fake news articles to the press accusing me and other activists of crimes we did not commit. Although in my case the charges were eventually dropped or I was eventually acquitted, the national and local police agencies created a situation where, based on their false accusations against me, any police officer could shoot me on sight. It was not until the Freedom of Information Act was passed in the mid-’70s that we began to see the scope of the United States government’s persecution of political activists.

At this point, I think that it is important to make one thing very clear. I have advocated and I still advocate revolutionary changes in the structure and in the principles that govern the United States. I advocate self-determination for my people and for all oppressed inside the United States. I advocate an end to capitalist exploitation, the abolition of racist policies, the eradication of sexism, and the elimination of political repression. If that is a crime, then I am totally guilty.

To make a long story short, I was captured in New Jersey in 1973, after being shot with both arms held in the air, and then shot again from the back. I was left on the ground to die, and when I did not, I was taken to a local hospital where I was threatened, beaten and tortured. In 1977 I was convicted in a trial that can only be described as a legal lynching.

In 1979 I was able to escape with the aid of some of my fellow comrades. I saw this as a necessary step, not only because I was innocent of the charges against me, but because I knew that in the racist legal system in the United States I would receive no justice. I was also afraid that I would be murdered in prison. I later arrived in Cuba where I am currently living in exile as a political refugee.

The New Jersey State Police and other law enforcement officials say they want to see me brought to “justice.” But I would like to know what they mean by “justice.” Is torture justice? I was kept in solitary confinement for more than two years, mostly in men’s prisons. Is that justice? My lawyers were threatened with imprisonment and imprisoned. Is that justice? I was tried by an all-white jury, without even the pretext of impartiality, and then sentenced to life in prison plus 33 years. Is that justice?

Let me emphasize that justice for me is not the issue I am addressing here; it is justice for my people that is at stake. When my people receive justice, I am sure that I will receive it, too.

AMY GOODMAN: That is an excerpt of a letter Assata Shakur read, an open letter to Pope John Paul II, during his trip to Cuba in 1998. When we come back from break, we’ll be joined by Assata Shakur’s longtime attorney, Lennox Hinds, and the scholar and activist Angela Davis. Stay with us.

2013-05-01 Cameco’s $800-million tax battle, Globe & Mail

Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Nuclear No Responses »

May 032013

UPDATES: put “Cameco” into the “SEARCH” button, upper right corner.

The uranium producer estimates it has avoided declaring $4.9-billion in Canadian income, saving it $1.4-billion in taxes, over the last 10 years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/camecos-800-million-tax-battle/article11665842/#dashboard/follows/

DAVID MILSTEAD

Special to The Globe and Mail

Did you know one of the largest sellers of uranium in Switzerland is Saskatoon-based Cameco Corp.? The Canada Revenue Agency has been aware for some time. And now Cameco shareholders are getting more details about the potential problems it may cause the company – as in more than $800-million in back taxes.

It wasn’t supposed to work out this way, of course. In 1999, Cameco set up a subsidiary, Cameco Europe Ltd., in low-tax Zug, Switzerland.

Cameco then signed a 17-year deal to take the uranium it produces in Canada, sell it to Cameco Europe, and have Cameco Europe make the final sale to the end customers all across the world.

Why inject a middleman into the transaction? Well, Cameco is selling the uranium to Cameco Europe at the low prices reflective of 1999, when the deal was signed. Cameco is recording little to any profit in Canada; instead, all the profits appear in Zug, where the tax rate is lower.

This has been a boon to Cameco’s bottom line. The uranium producer estimates it has avoided declaring $4.9-billion in Canadian income, saving it $1.4-billion in taxes, over the last 10 years.

We know this because Cameco has been fighting the Canada Revenue Agency since 2008 over this matter. The CRA has been slowly reassessing Cameco’s tax returns; it’s finished with 2007 now, and has five more – 2008 to 2012 – to go.

Until Wednesday, when Cameco released its first-quarter earnings, the fight seemed a relatively minor matter, because the company had enough accumulated losses to shield it from exposure to back taxes for the disputed returns of 2003 to 2007.

Each time the CRA reassesses a return, however, the taxpayer owes 50 per cent of the disputed bill. The taxpayer only gets it back if the CRA loses the case. Cameco has now run out of accumulated losses to cover these disputed taxes, as evidenced by a cash payment late last year to cover the 2007 return.

With Wednesday’s earnings, Cameco has provided new disclosure, in which it estimates it may need to cough up $400-million to $425- million in the short term as it waits to find out if it will prevail.

(The full tax bill, if Cameco loses the fight, would be $800-million to $850-million, or more than $2 per share.)

The company says it is “confident that we will be successful in our case.” But the analysts of Veritas Research Corp., who accurately predicted the numbers in Wednesday’s disclosure, disagree.

Pawel Rajszel, Dimitry Khmelnitsky and Diana Akmal reviewed the motions filed by the CRA in tax court. The CRA objects both to the structure of Cameco’s Swiss subsidiary and the “transfer prices” between the two.

Canada requires transfer prices – prices set between related parties – to be within a range that would be charged by independent parties dealing at arm’s length.

Helpfully, Cameco also has a deal in place, struck in 2001 with the Russian company Tenex, in which Cameco Europe is obtaining uranium from a third party at prices that have turned out to be below current market conditions.

Cameco said Wednesday the contracts of Cameco Europe are “generally comparable” to arm’s-length deals of the time. However, the company has recorded a provision of $65-million “where an argument could be made that our transfer price may have fallen outside of an appropriate range of pricing.”

That may not be the end of it, however. The Veritas analysts note that Cameco Canada “performed virtually all operating functions” for Cameco Europe, “while also providing performance guarantees – which we believe makes the contract incomparable to other market transactions.”

If the appropriate method for allocating profits is the relative contributions of Cameco Canada and Cameco Europe, the Veritas analysts say, “the profit allocation method would suggest all profits should be allocated to [Cameco Canada], which supports the CRA’s view that all of [Cameco Europe’s] income should be taxed in Canada.”

Grant Isaac, Cameco’s CFO, retorts that Cameco Europe has its own board of directors and a full-time CEO, Gerhard Glattes, who has no other duties with the company. Cameco Europe provides Cameco with compensation for the management duties – like legal advice – it does not have its own staff for. “It was established in accordance with all relevant laws and regulations when it was set up.”

In addition, he adds, “a transfer price dispute cannot be assessed in hindsight … to go back and say ‘Oh, well the future wasn’t what we thought’ – well, that’s not an appropriate way to do transfer-price analysis.”

A loss in the tax case – which may not occur until 2015 – would have even larger implications than a one-time $800-million tax bill; it will wipe out one of the key drivers of Cameco’s bottom line. Veritas estimates the company paid just $36-million in cash taxes for 2012 on $680-million pre-tax cash flow from operations, or a 5-per-cent rate.

The difference between that and the statutory rate of 27 per cent would come right out of cash flow – a cut of more than 20 per cent, Veritas says.

If you’ll pardon the pun, it’s becoming quite the taxing situation for Cameco shareholders.

Poison in the Offer – The Success Story of U.S. Giant Monsanto, from Manfred Ladwig

Food, Genetically Modified, Health, Take back the University, Technology No Responses »

May 022013

A half-hour documentary film on Monsanto, from Germany.

http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/6274/Poison-in-the-Offer—The-Success-Story-of-U-S–Giant-Monsanto

Director: Manfred Ladwig | Producer: Manfred Ladwig Genre: Documentary | Produced In: 2007 | Story Teller’s Country: Germany

Tags: Americas, Asia, Conflict, Crime, Ecology, Environment, Science, United States, Vietnam

Synopsis: This very moment is not true, one could think. Thirty years after American GIs and Vietnamese Vietcong battled against and killed each other, they fight together as allies. Today they share one enemy: U.S. chemical giant Monsanto, producer of the defoliant agent orange. They fight in front of the second court of appeal in Manhattan, New York. They have one aim in common: they demand compensation because of remote damages at themselves and their children. Agent Orange has been sprayed over the Vietnamese Dschungel. The judges at the second court of appeal have to decide whether compensations have to be paid. The main question at hand is, what did Monsanto know about the danger of its product Agent Orange? Critics claim that Monsanto did know about the toxicity of their product very early. But the company restrained the truth, critics say. This film gives a portrait of Monsanto’s criminal activities. Also showing Monsanto’s latest business activities, this U.S. giant today is the world biggest producer of genetically modified seed. And as the film shows how Monsanto’s criminal biography continues in that field as well.

2013-05-02 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision. Census Lockheed Martin. R vs Sandra Finley

Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys No Responses »

May 022013

2013SKCA047 Census Judgment SK CA

2013-04-30 Katz Group executive reprimanded for illegal 2012 political donation

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT? No Responses »

May 022013

The article is well-titled: a “REPRIMAND” for “ILLEGAL ACTIVITY”.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/Katz%2BGroup%2Bexecutive%2Breprimanded%2Billegal%2B2012%2Bpolitical/8318657/story.html

By Sarah O’Donnell, Edmonton Journal

EDMONTON – Elections Alberta censured a top Katz Group executive Tuesday, saying his $25,000 donation to the Progressive Conservative Party in 2012 was illegal.

But information from the elections agency suggested it could be the only problem flagged with $430,000 of controversial donations to the PC party connected to Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz.

Hefty donations from Katz, several family members and top company executives have been under scrutiny since last fall when opposition leaders accused the PCs of breaching donation limits after reports that the money arrived in a single cheque.

Both the PCs and other opposition parties asked Elections Alberta to investigate.

In her Tuesday decision specifically about the donation by Katz Group chief financial officer Paul Marcaccio, acting chief electoral officer Lori McKee-Jeske confirmed the PC Party received a $430,000 bank draft from Katz Group Properties Inc. on April 16, 2012.

Marcaccio’s $25,000 piece of that contribution, which he repaid to the Katz Group with a personal cheque, should never have been made, she said, since his main home is Toronto. People who ordinarily live outside Alberta are prohibited from making political donations under provincial law.

The PC Party returned the $25,000 after learning from Elections Alberta the money came from a “non-ordinary” resident.

And because Marcaccio made “an error, believing in good faith,” co-operated with the investigation and acknowledged his mistake, Elections Alberta ruled a letter of reprimand was a suitable penalty, as opposed to a fine or prosecution.

Publishing the decision will have a “significant impact on Mr. Marcaccio personally, and given the likely profile of this case, will follow him for the balance of his career,” McKee-Jeske wrote in her decision.

“The public interest will be served by a fulsome public disclosure of the circumstances of the matter and Mr. Marcaccio’s commitment to further compliance.”

A spokesman for the Katz Group declined to comment Tuesday night.

According to Elections Alberta, the decision marks the first time an investigation into a contribution from someone outside the province has proven to be true. McKee-Jeske warned the case should be a caution to those who may work in Alberta, but live elsewhere.

“If there are future cases, the chief electoral officer may well consider imposing more severe sanctions or referring the matters to prosecution,” she wrote.

Premier Alison Redford did not comment on the decision Tuesday.

But PC party president Jim McCormick said in a letter to McKee-Jeske that party officials agreed with her findings that the PCs “did not knowingly solicit or accept a contribution” that broke the rules.

“Your letter confirms that it was impossible for the PCAA to have known that these donations were from a non-ordinary resident,” he wrote, noting later that the decision supports the conclusion that “the remaining donations must be separate contributions and therefore compliant with donation limits.”

Elections Alberta officials said they will release information on that larger investigation to people involved on Wednesday. But that information will only be released by the agency if someone involves makes a written request.

Under Alberta’s recently amended election laws, Elections Alberta has to publicly post their finding if laws are broken. If no breach occurs, however, the office does not automatically report the results, spokesman Drew Westwater said.

NDP Leader Brian Mason said he was glad to hear the PCs had returned Marcaccio’s donation.

But he said he felt the letter of reprimand failed to send a tough enough message.

“I think it’s very consistent with the slap-on-the-wrist approach of the chief electoral officers so far,” Mason said. “Not only do we have weak legislation, but it’s weakly enforced and I don’t think that sends the right message to others who might try the same thing.”

sodonnell AT edmontonjournal.com

Older Entries Newer Entries