Bulletin #199
Subject : ON THE WAR RESISTANCE
MOVEMENT IN
22
September 2005
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
Classes have resumed at Stendhal University-Grenoble 3, and already a
rock
concert is scheduled this weekend as an anti-war benefit.
An international student movement seems to be brewing this autumn, and
in Item A. we learn from graphic
artist, Joanna Learner, that in
In Item B. Professor Richard Du Boff has forwarded us a
copy of the
speech made by Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister of
Item C. is a
reminder, sent to us by our friends at ZMag, that private
property and
the private profit motive remain the essential engine forces
that are
propelling the present system toward an abyss [and perhaps taking us
along with
it]. Neo-liberal ideologues for years have tried to obfuscate the
self-destructive nature of possessive individualism, but the successful
resistance in
Finally, in Item D., community organizer, Byron
Morton, from
Sincerely
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research
Universit頓tendhal-Grenoble3
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/
______________
A.
from Joanna Learner
Subject: Injured Iraqi Vet
21 Sept. 2005
http://raforum.apinc.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=601
Hello Francis,
I am sending a letter I just wrote for our local paper - it will come
out
tomorrow. Everything seems to be falling apart in the world
with
the combination of natural disasters and man made ones. It is hard to
focus on
the positive things with such a broiling mess around us.
I will send some photos and a letter soon. Give our love to your
family.
Joanna
P.S. I am submitting the following for
the Enquirer
Opinion page [in
The Injured Iraqi Veteran
He was seated there
in front
of Starbucks; leaning back with his face to the sky on
this
beautiful September day in
People passing by him averting their eyes and he sat there
quietly
watching them pass.
The haunting image of this tragic person stayed with me - who is he
and
how did this terrible accident happen? I called Starbucks to ask
if they
know who he was and if he is getting help. They said he was
frequently
there and that he was a Veteran injured in the Iraqi War .
They
assured me that he is receiving treatment. But one can see that the
damage is
so extensive that he will never have a face again.
Thousands of young men and women serving in the U.S. Military are
returning home with similar combat injuries - loss of limbs,
permanently damaged bodies and minds. They, along with the
hundreds
of thousands of injured and dead Iraqi men, women and children,
make
up the growing number of victims of this evil and unjustifiable
war.
Many of our young people in local high schools are at risk of
being
recruited and sent into combat . The No Child Left Behind Act includes
a
provision that requires high schools to release students private
information to
military recruiters or risk losing federal funding. The recruiters are
doing
everything that they can to entice the often naive young students
into
military service. Parents have the legal right to prevent
their
students from being recruited. They can submit a written
request
that the high school not release information to military recruiters. To
down
load information go to : www.leavemychildalone.org
This weekend over a million people will gather in Washington D C for a
Peace
Demonstration. People are traveling from all over the nation to
once
again stand together and demand an end to our occupation of
________________
B.
from Richard Du Boff
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:09:48 -0400
Subject: People with blood-soaked hands
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10305.htm
The following is the text of a controversial speech by e walkout of a
number of
diplomats and made news all over the world.
People with
blood-soaked hands
by Mahathir Mohamad
09/16/05 ICH -- -- I would like to
thank
Suhakam for this honour to address you on a subject that you have more
knowledge and experience than I do.
You are concerned with human rights or hak asasi manusia. And it
is only
right that as a civilised society and nation we should all be concerned
with
human rights in our country and in fact in the world.
But human rights should be upheld because they can contribute to
a better
quality of life. To kill 100,000 people because you suspect that the
human
rights of a few have been denied seem to be a contradiction. Yet the
fanaticism
of the champions of human rights have led to more people being deprived
of
their rights and many their lives than the number saved. It seems to me
that we
have lost our sense of proportion.
With civilisational advances it is only right that the human
community
try to distinguish itself more and more from those of the other
creatures
created by God which are unable to think, to reason and to overcome the
influence of base desires and feelings. Submission to the strong and
the
powerful was right in the animal world and in primitive human
societies. But
the more advance the society the greater should be the capacity to
think, to
recognise and evaluate between right and wrong and to choose between
these
based on higher reasoning power and not just base feelings and desires.
The world today is, in the sense of the ability to make right
choices,
still very primitive. For example those who claim to be the most
civilised
still believe that the misfortune which befall them as a result of the
actions
by their enemies are wrong but the misfortune that they inflict on
their
enemies are right. This is seen from the concern and anger over the
death of
1,700
There is no tally of Iraqi deaths but every single death of a
You and I read reports of the death of Iraqis with equanimity as
if it is
right and just. You and I do not react with anger and horror over this
injustice, this abuse of the rights of the Iraqis to live, to be free
from
terror including state initiated terror.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq on false pretences, 500,000 infants
died
because sanctions deprived them of medicine and food/ Asked by the
press,
Madelene Albright, then US secretary of state, whether she thought the
price
was not too high for stopping Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, she said
it was
difficult but the price (death of 500,000 children) was worth it.
At the time this was happening where were the people who are
concerned
with human rights? Did they expose the abuses of
Yet what is an act of terror. Isn't it any act that terrifies
people? Are
not the people terrified at the idea of being bombed and killed? Those
who are
to be killed by exploding bombs know they would have their bodies torn
from
their heads and limbs. Some will die instantly no doubt. But many would
not.
They would feel their limbs being torn from their bodies, their guts
spilled on
the ground through their torn abdomen. They would wait in terrible pain
for
help that may not come. And they would again experience the terror,
expecting
the next bomb or rocket. And those who survive would know the terror of
what
would, what could happen to them personally when the bombers come
again,
tomorrow, the day after, the week or month after.
They would know that they could be next to have their heads torn
from
their bodies, their limbs too. They would know that they would die
violently or
they would survive in horrible pain, minus arms, minus legs, maimed
forever.
And yet the bombings would go on. In
The British and American bomber pilots came, unopposed, safe and
cosy in
their state-of-the-art aircrafts, pressing buttons to drop bombs, to
kill and
maim real people who were their targets, just targets. And these
murderers, for
that is what they are, would go back to celebrate '
Who are the terrorists? The people below who were bombed or the
bombers?
Whose rights have been snatched away?
I relate this because there are not just double standards where
human
rights are concerned, there are multiple standards. Rightly we should
be
concerned whether prisoners and detained foreign workers in this
country are
treated well or not. We should be concerned whether everyone can
exercise his
right to vote or not, whether the food given to detainees are wholesome
or not,
indeed whether detention without trial is a violation of human rights
or not.
But the people whose hands are soaked in the blood of the
innocents, the
blood of the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Panamanians, the Nicaraguans, the
Chileans, the Ecuadorians; the people who assassinated the presidents
of
Panama, Chile, Ecuador; the people who ignored international law and
mounted
military attacks, invading and killing hundreds of Panamanian in order
to
arrest Noriega and to try him not under Panamanian laws but under their
own
country's law, have these people a right to question human rights in
our
country, to make a list and grade the human rights record of the
countries of
the world yearly, these people with blood-soaked hands.
They have not questioned the blatant abuses of human rights in
countries
that are friendly to them. In fact they provide the means for these
countries
to indulge in human rights abuses.
Then there are other friends of these terrorist nations who abuse
the
rights of their own people, deny them even the simplest democratic
rights, jailing
and executing their people without fair trial but are not criticised or
condemned.
But when countries are not friendly with these great powers,
their
governments claim they have a right to expend money to subvert the
government,
to support the NGOs to overthrow the government, to ensure only
candidates
willing to submit to them win. Already we are seeing elections in which
candidates wanting to stay independent being rejected while only those
ready to
submit to these powers being allowed to contest and to win.
There was a time when nations pledged not to interfere in the
internal
affairs of other countries. As a result many authoritarian regimes
emerged
which committed terrible atrocities.
There is a case for interference. But who determines when there
is a
case? Is this right to be given to a particular superpower? If so, can
we be
assured the superpower would act in the best interest of the country
concerned,
in order to uphold human rights.
Saddam Hussein was tried by the media and found guilty of
oppressing his
people. But that was not the excuse for invading
As we all know it was a lie. Every agency tasked with verifying
the
accusation that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction could not prove
it. Even
the intelligence agencies of the
Yet the
So can we accept that these big powers alone have a right to
determine
when to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries to protect
human
rights?
People in
They have political parties that they are free to join, whether
these are
pro-government or anti-government. They can read newspapers, which
support or
oppose the government. While the local electronic media is supportive
of the
government, no one is prevented from watching or listening to foreign
broadcasts which are mostly critical of the government.
Foreign newspapers and magazines are freely available. In fact
many
foreign papers, like the International Herald Tribune and Asian Wall
Street
Journal are printed in
Periodically, without fail there would be elections in
But all these notwithstanding,
And not using the ISA, not detaining a person without trial would
not
help either. And so when a former DPM was charged in court, defended by
nine
lawyers and found guilty through due process, all that was said was
that there
was a conspiracy, the court was influenced and manipulated and the
trial was a
sham. So you are damned if you use the ISA, and you are damned if you
don't use
the ISA.
In the eyes of these self-appointed judges of human behaviour
worldwide,
you can never be right no matter what you do, if they do not like you.
If they
like you, a court decision in your favour, even on laughable grounds,
would be
right.
Those are the people who now seem to appropriate to themselves
the right
to lay down the ground rules for human rights and who have appointed
themselves
as the overseers of human rights credentials of the world.
And now these same people have come up with what they call
globalisation.
In the first place who has the right to propose and interpret
globalisation? It
is certain that globalisation was not conceived by the poor countries.
It was
conceived, interpreted and initiated by the rich.
The globalised world is to be without borders. But if countries
have no
borders surely the first thing that should happen is that people would
be able
to move from one country to another without any conditions, without
papers and
passports. The poor people in the poor countries should be able to
migrate to
the rich countries where there are jobs and opportunities.
But it has been made clear that globalisation, borderlessness are
not for
people but for capital, for currency traders, for corporations, for
banks, for
NGOs concerned over so-called human rights abuses, over lack of
democracy, etc.
The flow is, as you can see, only in one direction. The border crossing
will be
done by the rich so as to be able to benefit their business, banks,
currency
traders, their NGOs, for human rights and for democracy.
There will be no flows in the opposite direction, from the poor
countries
to the rich, the flow of poor people in search of jobs, the NGOs
concerned with
human rights abuses in the rich and powerful countries where the media
self-censors to promote certain parties, where dubious voting results
are
validated by tame courts. There will be no flow of coloured people to
white
countries. If they succeed they would be apprehended and sent to
isolated
islands in the middle of the ocean or if they manage to land, they
would be
accommodated behind razor-wire fence. It is all very democratic and
caring for
the rights of man.
If we care to look back, we will recognise globalisation for what
it is.
It is really not a new idea at all. Globalisation of trade took place
when the
ethnic Europeans found the sea passages to the West and to the East.
They
wanted trade, but they came in armed merchantmen with guns and invaded,
conquered and colonised their trading partners.
If the indigenous people were weak, they would just be
liquidated, shot
on sight, their land taken and new ethnic European countries set up.
Otherwise
they would be made a part of empires where the sun never sets, their
resources
exploited and their people treated with disdain.
The map of the world today shows the effect of globalisation, as
interpreted by the ethnic Europeans in history. There was no
Before the Europeans, there were Arab, Indian, Chinese and Turkic
traders. There was no conquest or colonisation when these people sailed
the
seas to trade. Only when the Europeans carried out world trade were
countries
invaded, human rights abused, genocide committed, empires built and new
ethnic
European nations created on land belonging to others.
These are historical facts. Would today's globalisation not
result in
weak countries being colonised again, new empires created, and the
world
totally hegemonised. Would today's globalisation not result in human
rights
abuses?
In today's world 20 percent of the people own 80 percent of the
wealth.
Almost two billion people live on one US dollar a day. They don't have
enough
food or clothing or a proper roof over their heads. In winter, many of
these
people would freeze to death. The people of the powerful countries are
concerned about our abuses of human rights.
But shouldn't we be concerned over the uneven distribution of
wealth
which deprived two billion people of their rights to a decent living,
deprived
by the avarice of those people who seem so concerned about us and the
unintended occasional lapses that has resulted in abuse of human rights
in our
country.
We should condemn human rights abuses in our country but we must
be wary
of the people who want to destabilise us because we are too independent
and we
have largely succeeded in giving our people a good life, and despite
all the
criticism, we are more democratic than most of the friends of the
powerful
nations of the world.
The globalisation of concern for the poor and the oppressed is
sheer
hypocrisy. If these people who appears to be concerned are faced with
the
situation that we in
When forced by world opinion to take action against those
responsible for
these reprehensible acts, the culprits were either found not guilty or
given
light sentences. They were tried by their own courts under their own
laws.
Their victims were not represented. The countries where the crimes were
committed were denied jurisdiction. Altogether the whole process was so
much
eyewash. Yet these are the countries and the people who claim that
Malaysian
courts are manipulated by the government, that abuses of rights are
rampant in
We must fight against abuses of human rights. We must fight for
human
rights. But we must not take away the rights of others, the rights of
the
majority. We must not kill them, invade and destroy their countries in
the name
of human rights. Just as many wrong things are done in the name of
Islam and
also other religions, worse things are being done in the name of
democracy and
human rights. We must have a proper perspective of things. Two wrongs
do not
make one right. Remember the community have rights too, not just the
individual
or the minority.
We have gained political independence but for many the minds are
still colonised.
_______________
C.
from ZNet
|
Activism
19 September 2005
www.zmag.org
Reclaiming
Commons Old And New
Presentation
to the
Other Worlds conference
by John Hepburn; September 15, 2005
The law will jail the man
or woman
Who steals the goose from
off the common
But leave the greater
villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose
I was lying in bed the
other morning, listening to the radio
news. On came the soothing and comforting voice of our Prime Minister,
John
Howard. In amongst his posturing about some issue or another, he said
Nothing
is ever free and nor should it be. It rolled off his tongue like a
truism. Sure
- nothing is ever free and nor should it be. Actually, lots of things
used to
be free and some things still are. Others should be. Theyre called
commons.
One of the first and the
best books that Ive ever read about
the global environmental and social crisis is a book called Whose
Common Future
by the publishers of The Ecologist. It is a scathing response to the
Brundtland
Report titled Our Common Future which resulted from the 1992 Rio Earth
Summit
(UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development).
There is a quote from the
book that sticks in my mind as one
of the best summaries of the essence of commons, and of the struggle to
defend
them:
The best that can be said
for the Earth Summit is that it
made visible the vested interests standing in the way of the moral
economies
which local people, who daily face the consequences of environmental
degradation, are seeking to re-establish. The spectacle of the great
and good
at UNCED casting about for solutions that will keep their power and
standards
of living intact has confirmed the scepticism of those whose fate and
livelihoods were being determined For them, the question is not how
their
environment should be managed they have the experience of the past as
their
guide but who will manage it and in whose interest.
The key question remains
who makes the decisions and in
whose interests and for me, this speaks to the essence of what is
important
about commons.
A common is a resource
(be it physical, spatial, conceptual)
that is managed by the community, for the community. The contentious
question then
becomes who is the community. The answer invariably depends on the
resource in
question.
There is a
widely held, and somewhat romantic myth that commons, by definition,
have no
boundaries, and are open to all. However, if we look at the most
commonly
celebrated example of commons, we see that this wasnt generally the
case. In
the common lands of
Commons are fundamentally
about people being able to access
resources and to make decisions about those resources to the extent
that they
are affected by those decisions. If you arent going to be impacted by a
decision, then you have no right to participate. If you are impacted,
then you
do have a right. In this way, commons are a very real embodiment of
direct,
participatory democracy and of self-management.
The vexing problem that
commons pose to capitalism is that
commons are not owned by anyone. If something isnt able to be owned,
how can
you put a value on it? If something doesnt have a market value, how can
you
steal it? Or more to the point, why would you want to steal it if you
cant sell
it to somebody else later at a higher price? If it can be said that
capitalism
has an essence, then the vast body of empirical evidence over the past
century
points to that essence being the appropriation of wealth from the many
by the
few. Of course, appropriation is just a polite word for theft. And the
process
of theft is necessarily preceded by a process of enclosure of putting
boundaries around, and values upon resources.
The enclosure of the
commons in
So if youre interested in
predicting where the next big
transfer of wealth from public to private hands is going to happen, you
need to
look for processes of enclosure. In 17th and 18th century
Many of the important struggles over commons today relate to cutting edge technologies in information technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology. In times gone by, land was the primary basis of economic wealth. Hence the importance of controlling land. Today, the basis of wealth in our economy has shifted and continues to shift. We moved from the Agricultural revolution in the 18th century (accompanied by the enclosure of common lands) to the industrial revolution in the 19th century (accompanied by the development of a patent system for intellectual property), to the information revolution in the 20th century (with an expansion of the patent and intellectual property system) and now the biotechnology and nanotechnology revolutions accompanied by patents on life and now patents on matter.
As the basis of economic wealth has become more mobile and more global, the struggle over the commons has also become more global. The global nature of information and trade, as well as the emergence of global environmental problems such as climate change and the hole in the ozone layer, create another layer of complexity and abstraction in terms of the management, enclosure or defense of commons.
When we think
of defending the commons today, the first image
that springs to mind is a historically rooted one of the landless
people of
The internet is a newly created common the most celebrated part of which is the open source software movement. This is a common that is under threat in a variety of ways that technological illiterates such as myself can only barely understand.
Broadband and radio frequencies? Who gets to define who has access to these common resources and at what price, and in whose interest? Large corporations didnt get virtually exclusive access to the airwaves by osmosis. They did it by establishing rules, defining boundaries by a process of enclosure that has resulted in exclusive access rights for the already powerful media conglomerates.
The biotechnology revolution has been hyped up to be the next industrial revolution and it was preceded by the development of patents on life. Like other examples, the enclosure happened without much media fanfare, most people didnt hear about it and many still dont know about it now.
The idea of patents
and of
intellectual property has been around for a very long time. Galileo
received a
patent in 1594 for his horse-driven water pump. Cooks were granted one
year
monopolies over new recipes in the 7th century B.C. The right to a
copyright or
patent is the only right included in the body of the
The boundaries
were gradually pushed. In 1873, Loius Pasteur
was awarded
In
The extension of patents to
cover living organisms and parts thereof has laid the groundwork for
the next
big heist. The biodiversity that the capitalist industrialist system
has spent
the last 100 or so years trying frantically to destroy, is now regarded
as the
basis for the next industrial revolution and is rapidly increasing in
value.
The framework for enclosure is in place and our genetic heritage the
biological
diversity that is and that sustains the richness of life on planet
earth - is
now up for grabs. Research teams of some of the worlds largest
corporations are
scouring the surface of the earth for potentially valuable genetic
property and
taking patents on anything from cell lines from indigenous people in
Food is an
interesting example. Most people dont really think of food as a common.
To be
truthful, most people in our culture dont really think about where
their food
comes from at all. But most of the basic foods that we eat today have
been
developed over thousands of years by peasant farmers in different parts
of the
world. Its true to say that food grows on trees, but most foods didnt
just
develop by accident they were actively bred. The genetic diversity of
our foods
is really a common. It has been managed through reciprocal
relationships
between farmers for millennia growing, developing and sharing seeds.
The combination of plant
breeder rights and patents on life
has enabled food to be at least partially enclosed and privatized. The
development of genetically engineered foods and in particular,
terminator
technology (breeding sterile seeds) is the extreme example.
But the process of
enclosure and commodification of food is
also strongly supported, and in some ways even led by a process of
enclosing
our imagination of shifting our desires and the way that we think about
food.
Wholefoods are part of
our common heritage they are
difficult to enclose (notwithstanding the aggressive attempts to do so)
because
they grow freely on trees and in the earth. However, if corporations
can create
a demand, indeed an addiction, for processed, synthesized foods that
cannot be
replicated easily by everyday people they can be trademarked or have
some other
form of monopoly protection. So the process of enclosure of our food
commons
proceeds not only through the increasing monopoly control over seeds
but also
through the social control of how we think about food and the kinds of
food
that we want to eat by limiting our collective imagination.
For example, many people
are no longer willing to eat fruit
with blemishes, or vegetables with worms. Indeed fruit and vegetables
themselves are off the menu for an increasing number of people whose
sustenance
derives almost exclusively from highly processed industrial foods. A
similar
shift is also evident in countries such as India where the majority of
people
currently exist outside of the formal food economy (ie they grow their
own
food, and trade within their community) but where corporate marketing
is being
used effectively to encourage people to abandon traditional food
systems and
adopt much more passive roles as consumers of industrial food.
Our current industrial
food system represents an
unprecedented human experiment, whereby virtually an entire generation
will
grow up with only a cursory understanding of where their food comes
from, and
will be largely unable to produce their own food. As time progresses,
the
limiting of our imagination will be reinforced by the limiting of our
lived
experience and our skills, ensuring the effective privatization of food
through
either legalized monopolies or through, as Vandana Shiva would say,
monocultures of the mind.
The latest frontier is
the patenting of matter of the
building blocks of our universe in order to pave the way for investment
in the
nanotechnology revolution. There are already existing patents on
elements
(Americium and Curium granted to Glenn Seaborg) and it is commonly
agreed that
you can secure patents even on an existing element.
Scientists
are manipulating matter at the nano scale (one billionth of a metre)
and
finding that common materials assume radically different properties.
Much as
with genetic engineering, they argue that nano materials are new and
different
in order to secure patents, but then argue that the materials are in
fact the
same everyday stuff weve been using for millennia in order to avoid
regulation
and safety testing. So far this strategy seems to be working.
The launching pad of the
global nanotechnology industry is
being built with around 3,000 new nanopatents a year around 90% of
which are
applied for in the
The struggle of commons
against enclosure is an ongoing,
historical struggle. The terrain is shiftingfrom land, to ideas, food,
waterto
the very building blocks of life and matter. Amongst the new
enclosures,
however, there is a resurgence in the creation of new commons of
creative
commons and networks of resistance. The open source software movement
has
defied critics and emerged as a potent economic and political counter
to
Microsoft and other monopoly patents. And like the fence jumpers and
squatters
of the physical world, the cyber world has given expression to
thousands of
creative ways of undermining intellectual property.
Our challenge is to
resist the enclosure of our
imagination.to imagine new ways of reclaiming and creating commons. For
the
commons are not static. There is no fixed quantity of common. They are
created
and renewed endlessly by people in communities the world over. Woven
like an
endless, shifting tapestry. We need to be bold enough to remember our
common
heritage. We need to look for emerging enclosures and name them for
what they
are theft. And we need to imagine not only our common futures, but also
our
future commons.
As a celebration of the resistance that is already happening, Id like to share a poem that captures the spirit of the creative commons an open source poem
This
poem is copyleft,
you
are free to distribute it, and diffuse it
dismantle
it, and abuse it
reproduce
it, and improve it
and
use it
for
your own ends
and
with your own ending
This
is an open source poem
Entering
the public domain
Here's
the source code,
the
rest remains
for
you to shape, stretch and bend
add
some salt and pepper if you want
share
it out amongst your friends
Because
I didn't write this poem, I molded it.
picked
up the lines out of a skip and refolded it
as
I was walking on over here,
rescued
leftover ideas,
on
their way to landfill,
found
screwed up fragments
and
found them a use.
Because,
think about it
I
can't tell you anything truly new.
There
can only be few more new ideas to be thought through.
So
should we treat them as rare commodities, high value oddities?
Probe
the arctic reserves and other sensitive ecologies
for
new ideas buried deep beneath the permafrost?
hunt
them out of the cultures till the cultures are lost?
then
suffocate them with patent protection?
No!
we should re use and recycle them
Pile
our public spaces high with ideas beyond anyone's imagining..
So
I steal a riff here and a rhyme there,
a
verse here and a line there
pass
them on around the circle,
roll
the words, add a joke
here
go on.. have a toke,
does
it get you high?
This
poem is indebted to Abbie Hoffman, Gil Scott Heron, Jim Thomas and
Sarah Jones,
This
poem is indebted to all the words I've read and the voices I've known
This
poem is a composite of intellect, yours and mine.
This
poem is RIPPED OFF! every single time
Because
intellectual property is theft
and
piracy our only defence left against the thought police.
when
no thought is new
its
just rewired, refined, remastered and reproduced
The
revolution will be plagiarised
The
revolution will not happen if our ideas are corporatised.
So
STEAL THIS POEM
Take
it and use it
for
your own ends
and
with your own ending
This
poem is copyleft,
All
rights are reversed
(stolen from Claire Fauset)
[1] Diamond vs Chakrabarty,
477 U.S. 303 (1980)
[2] U.S. Patent No. 4,736,866 (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office)
_______________
D.
from Byron Morton
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:14:10 -0700
Subject: Fw: Bush Photos
Francis,
I can't believe this guy is the President.
Byron
First, there was the note asking
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice if he could take a bathroom break
during
the UN Summit, now, photgraphic evidence that the Leader of the
Free
World couldn't
get
his shirt buttoned right for one of the most important speeches of
his
Presidency.
BushButtonShirt
BushBathroomBreakNote.jpg
