Promethean Digest I-1

Promethean Digest (I-1) 1

PROMETHEAN DIGESTVolume I, ed. 1


Letter From the BoardWelcome to the first Issue of the Promethean Society Newsletter! Our aim is to provide a bimonthly electronic newspaper of the inner workings of our society, by featuring your written works within your focus areas of expertise. In order to have as many people contributing as possible, and so that you may know how to do so, we have set out to more clearly elucidate how you can be a part of this newsletter.

There are three primary ways for you to contribute to the newsletter:

1. In the form of written articles, with citations. This is primarily meant as a way for you to share with us any work you might have recently written for a class, university (or other) newspaper, or for the truly ambitious among you, entirely new pieces written from scratch. Given the time constraints put on our general membership due to classes and work, we encourage you to contribute lightly edited (i.e. shortened or focused) pieces you have written in classes from your areas of expertise (or other areas too, of course). Feel particularly proud of that paper on why the debt ceiling issue was overblown? Want to get some thoughts on that essay outlining why you think Cameroon is our number one geopolitical foe? Here's the place to do it.

2. In the form of blogs (also known as intelligent rants). These can be in two formats: either stand-alone, or serial. Preferably, the blogs would be mostly serial in nature, spanning more than one issue of the newsletter, though not necessarily running infinitely (unless, of course, you would like to write about some issue for that long of an amount of time). If you'd love to do a country-by-country profile of the European crisis, or discuss regional hotspots around the world, or particular conferences going on at any one time, this would be the place for such a thing, with the added benefit that you won't have to provide an actual bibliography of any kind.


3. In the form of suggestions for articles, videos (such as TED Talks) and books you think are interesting and would like to share with the general membership at large in a more visible way. This format could also encompass a 'book club' (or journal club for the scientists among you) format, and we can have organized (or disorganized) discussions and even forums running for the books, articles and talks and their respective issues.If you have any ideas you'd like to write about or contribute to in any of these three categories, feel free to contact the Board via <[email protected]>, and we will work with you to explain and expedite the process as much as possible. The goal here is for us to do all the hard work and make it as easy as humanly possible for you all to contribute as much as possible. So, help us help you help everybody else be smarter and more enlightened about these issues.

Thank you for your dedication to intellectualism and your willingness to partake in the widespread discussion of how healthier communities are formed. The Board of Trustees is elatedly looking forward to the great many things we will accomplish within this first year of the society, and the many years to come.

Sincerely,The Board


Could the International Criminal Court Be Our Ticket to Serious Environmental Progress?-Benjamin SchaubThere seems to be little doubt these days about the approaching total globalization of our world; international trade is connecting economies across borders, the international media brings us news from all corners of the globe, and for many with access to the Internet or a means of traveling, experiencing other cultures is easier than ever before. Whether it is for better or for worse, we have entered the Anthropocene, and it will be defined by globalism (Slaughter).

Now, activists around the world will tell you what a terrible mistake this is, how we’ve put ourselves in a position where we will have to choose either some short term justice for those in the “developing world” whom globalization has extended economic opportunities to and the continuous growth many value or the preservation of our environment. As an environmentalist, I myself have often echoed these sentiments. After all, infinite growth systems on a finite planet certainly do put

us at odds with the environment, especially if we keep approaching industry and development the way we have for most of the post-war era, and the millions of people with rising incomes around the world, although just as deserving as any American of consumer lifestyles, will only make things worse. Fixing this problem will require widespread changes in culture and a new ethic on the relationship of the environment to the individual, and I think these changes can begin with international human rights law. So much of our collective moral conscience already comes from the rule of law, from our decisions as consumers and business owners to our engagement in random acts of kindness. As our new world emerges, ever more integrated and interconnected, we are going to need a rule of law that works on a planetary scale to solve our most pressing and unwieldy problems. Given this need, I see great potential in the justice of the International Criminal Court


for leading us down the path to ecological sustainability.

That the environmental crisis should be dealt with on an international basis seems obvious: air, land, water, and the complex ecosystems that connect them all to ourselves do not have any regard for national borders, so realistically, in dealing with their preservation, neither should we. The social problem here however is two-fold; the environmental crisis is being driven both by the growth-at-all-costs business ethic of transnational corporations and the ever-growing demand for goods and services by consumers within individual countries that endorses that ethic. For this reason, I think that efforts to merely change the cultural mentality of consumers or, on the other hand, to try creating financial limits for corporations where they are damaging the environment (for example, by using carbon taxes) will, by themselves, be ineffective. Although such efforts are praiseworthy and necessary, a more efficient way of achieving results (and I would speculate, an expedient way of inspiring

cultural and ethical changes from the people who drive the ecological crisis most) is to pitch environmental protections in terms of our human rights. To an embarrassing degree, the fact that we have simply forgotten our connection with nature has created this crisis in the first place. Our regard for natural space and resources as a set of commodities for our exploitation has given us something of an ecological time bomb in the form of an incalculable imbalance emerging in natural systems. Alternatively for the moment, the view of nature among many pseudo-naturalists and environmentalists as some wilderness that is valuable for visiting recreationally is not much better. The need for a new philosophy on the environment and our stake in it is where human rights and the ICC come in.

In terms of international law, human rights can be defined as “… limitations on the ways a government can treat its people,” (Popvic). Human beings deserve intrinsic respect because their sentience makes them sacrosanct.


At their best, human rights can also stipulate what a government ought to do not only to avoid violating human rights, but to preserve them from external harm by non-governmental bodies as well. Environmental protections must be included in this set of untouchable rights because, in spite of the fact that a law which protects an ecosystem may be directly preserving a forest or coral reef (for example), there is a connection between a functioning and resilient biosphere and a basic ability to enjoy human rights. Protections for the air, land, and water are also protections for humanity, because we are so absolutely and inextricably reliant upon them. In order to enjoy human rights like the freedom to own property or recognition before the law, we need first to ensure that the air that fills our lungs will not damage them, and that the water we drink will not be contaminated with industrial pollution. An unlivable earth renders the concern of respect for the individual rather moot. For many academics in the realm of international human rights law, these attempts to define reasons

for caring about the environment in terms of its value for humanity is misguided and too narrow a lens, given that there are countless other species to consider in the fragile global ecosystem. However, for the purpose of convincing humanity on a large scale that nature is worth protecting, probably the most effective method is to show them that they would also be protecting themselves. For people in cultures that value nature in and of itself and cultures that are more concerned with individual freedom even as it conflicts with natural conservation alike, the idea that environmental law violations are also violations of their personal rights would be a powerful agent of change (Popovic).

The ICC, as a mechanism of international law founded to “…exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern,” (Rome Statute 9) has a truly remarkable political and legal opportunity at its disposal. For decades, the human rights of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration have been largely


aspirational. Most states recognize the good intentions and moral worthiness of having such a declaration, but when it comes to actual enforcement, the UN lacks the punitive teeth to push these standards beyond their theoretical origins. But with the ICC we can begin real progress. The ICC has been given the ability to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression, and although the court’s beginnings since 2002 have seen few sentences and have largely focused on the arena of war crimes and ethnic violence, as their universal jurisdiction becomes more clearly defined and the nations signatory to the Rome Statute can develop a better line of communication between their own legal resources and the court, we may well see the rise of a formidable whistle blower for human rights violations of all kinds. What I am suggesting as a potential plan for setting strong precedents both for human rights and for our international value of the environment is this; among the crimes punishable by the International Criminal Court is

the “Crime against humanity of other inhumane acts,” which is defined as an act that is committed when “The perpetrator inflicted great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of an inhumane act,” and did so knowing the factual circumstances surrounding the consequence of their actions, and also knowing that it would effect a civilian population a large scale (The Elements of Crimes 18). In order to establish that major harm to ecosystems are such crimes against humanity, we need look no further than the numerous warnings issued by the scientific community (e.g. the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 1994 “Warning to Humanity”, among others) to conclude that, to the best of current human knowledge, the impairment of an ecosystem can amount to a great deal of human suffering and conflict, potentially on a global scale. Furthermore, as is evident in the onslaught of advice from scientists to companies and governments alike that modern industry is indeed environmentally harmful and must become sustainable in order


to avoid immense social and economic damage from a collapsing global ecology, we can reasonably assume that perpetrators of repeated “ecocide” were well aware of the consequences of their actions at the time(s) they were committed. Since the nature of these crimes is more removed from direct harm to a person than something like genocide or systematic enslavement, it is not so imperative that the ICC administer prison sentences or any other such revocation of personal freedoms to create a culture of fear. Rather, to inspire a culture of change, it is urgent that they prosecute these actions using their system of fines or the “…forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties,” (Rome Statute 57) so that a new conscience for international business can be established. After all, it would be hypocritical in the extreme to fight human rights violations with human rights violations. In demanding of the sovereign nations through which their jurisdiction is exercised that

they reprimand environmental damage, the ICC can create a new standard not only for corporations’ industrial practices, but also for the expectation of the nations which owe a check on environmental crimes to their citizens.

“What is theoretical in international human rights law can become customary in judicial practice, and what becomes customary will finally become legally binding,” (Popovic). The International Criminal Court has an opportunity that has presented itself a precious few times in human history. They are an organization founded purely to enforce the standards of human rights that mankind has so striven to define and secure over centuries, and without the political pressures of nationalism or rhetoric of environmental regulations hurting economies, they may take these theories and finally make them legally binding. The time is now here when we can think of what is right, and enact it under the law. For, as iconic environmentalist Aldo Leopold once wrote, “A thing is right when it tends to


preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community… we are the biotic community, our bodies are the biosphere, and the human rights

must apply to the ties that bind us-blood bone and tissue- and our communities to the land,” (Sauer 13).

Works CitedThe International Criminal Court. The Elements of Crimes. 2002. icc-cpi.int. PDF file.

The International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute. 2002. icc-cpi.int. PDF file.“Human Rights Consortium Launches Project to nvestigate ‘Ecocide’ as an

international crime.” sas.ac.uk. University of London. School of Advanced

Studies. 2012. Web.Popovic, Neil. "International Human Rights Law and the Environment." UC Berkeley.

Boalt Hall Law School, Berkeley, CA. Spring 2009. Guest Lecture.Sauer, Peter. "Reinhabiting Environmentalism." The Future of Nature. Ed. Barry

Lopez. Montreal, Canada: PMilkweed Publications, 2007. pp. 5-13. Print.Slaughter, Anne-Marie. "Problems Will Be Global—And Solutions Will Be, Too."

Foreign Policy Magazine. The Foreign Policy Group, LLC., Sept/Oct 2011. Web.


Oversimplifying Complex Problems: A Non-Tragedy of the Commons? – Francisco ÁlvarezPopularized by Garrett Hardin in a landmark 1968 paper in Science, the ‘tragedy of the commons’ thesis describes what may happen in groups when individuals with open access to, or unlimited use of, natural resources act according to their own self-interests, ignoring the needs of the whole group. Hardin presents a model where a group of herdsmen share a communal pasture, but some realize that if they increased their own herd, they could receive more in return for themselves. However, increasing their herds in spite of the plot’s ‘carrying capacity’ eventually leads to the unintentional destruction of the common grazing area.

“Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons” (Hardin, 1968).

In other words, the dilemma arises when individual, presumably rational use (i.e., acting without restraint to maximize personal short-term gain) of accessible resources held in common can cause long-range harm to others and ultimately oneself1. Furthermore, Hardin inferred that this concept applies more generally to other environmental issues as well (e.g., waste dumping, overfishing). To understand how this can happen anywhere, one must consider the logic leading to such circumstances. Each consumer (herder needing to graze cows) knows that if (s)he does not consume more (add another cow to the pasture), some other herder will do so. As such, even if the depletion of the common resource is foreseeable, it is not within the power of any single stakeholder to prevent. In fact, each consumer faces a catch-22 of sorts: either settle for a short-term benefit while contributing to the destruction of a common good, or forego the benefit and watch that good


disappear anyway (Linquist, 2012).

However, a ‘tragedy’ in resource management is not inevitable. It is more likely to occur if one is dealing with a common-pool resource that is reducible (i.e., one’s consumption of a certain resource reduces availability for others), able to be overused, and faces unrestrained, open access (i.e., lack of regulation for one reason or another). Moreover, while there is no one-size-fits-all approach to maintaining stable ecological conditions, since publication of Hardin’s original article, scholars have explored several tools that can used to temper consumption and offset the path to irreversible ecological harm. These include assembling and disseminating knowledge; forming locally-based institutions that allow for self-governance; and incentives for locals to strive for ecological stewardship.

Natural resource management depends first and foremost on reliable information about the use and availability of resources such as drinking water, fossil fuels, and fish populations. As

evolutionary psychologist Mark Van Vugt points out, “Environmental uncertainty tends to promote overuse because most users are optimistic about the future and underestimate the damage they are doing to the environment” (Van Vugt, 2009). Given, gathering reliable information is simpler when resources have clearly defined boundaries, but science still plays a vital role in reducing environmental uncertainty (Van Vugt, 2009). Van Vugt comments upon the results of a survey concerning a water shortage in the United Kingdom:

“It appears that, when crafting messages to raise public awareness about environmental matters, simple information is often most effective – particularly when decision makers are already contemplating changing their behavior. For instance, labels with comparative information about energy use and emissions of household appliances work best when consumers are already thinking ‘green’ but lack specific technical knowledge” (Van Vugt, 2009)


Raising public awareness may also be necessary to reshape societal paradigms. Environmental scientist Constance Becker highlights an instance where the rural inhabitants of a planned watershed preserve in rural Ecuador initially misunderstood the designation of a ‘protective forest’. Locals mistook the term, as established by Ecuador’s 1981 Law of Forests, as land to which their property rights were to be protected as they saw fit rather than a forest cover that sustains the ecological integrity of watersheds by reducing soil erosion and maintaining water quality/quantity (Becker 2003). Environmental scientists and policy experts must collaborate closely to enhance people’s understanding of environmental problems and to develop public campaigns providing accurate information.

That said, words alone are considered weak constraints – ‘cheap talk’ – when individuals face short-term profits at the cost of overusing resources (Ostrom 2002). Incentives may tip stakeholders’ cost-benefit

decisions in favor of developing and abiding by rules that manage resources sustainably (Becker 2003). Furthermore, to keep cheating in check, monitors need to be sufficiently rewarded for discovering violators so as to overcome opportunity costs by their monitoring activities (Ostrom 2002).

One of the most notable critics of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ conceit itself was the recently passed Elinor Ostrom*. She discusses in a recent interview.

Planet Money: The tragedy of the commons sort of makes intuitive sense to me that people would work in their own self-interest…Ostrom: I think humans are a little more complex than you are making them out… The instinct to survive, yes, at the time of very extreme difficulties and no trust… but humans have learned to work together over the centuries… so in addition to our self- interests, we have grown up with a more complex set of interests... The core [of my economic theory] is still an individual but the individual is a little more complex than the caricature than of a me-


first, always [individual]… this model can be used mathematically to predict outcomes when the problem is pure private goods in a highly competitive market… but we also need to understand that humans are more complex than only taking their immediate self-interest in account… humans learn norms… the importance of members of their community… Planet Money: So we are both self-interested but we can think about our future self-interests and we have some desire to work with one another?Ostrom: Yes… People don’t like that we are talking about something more complex because sometimes it’s harder to fit into a[n existing] mathematical model.(Planet Money 2009)

Ostrom concedes that Hardin identified a very important problem – how to manage a resource that doesn’t belong to anyone – but she contended that Hardin overstated the ‘tragedy’ given that in many instances (but not all) people have found ways of agreeing on their own rules and extracting themselves from a

challenge in collective-action. Hardin and his disciples had overlooked how often the ‘tragedy of the commons’ had been averted thanks to ingenious local institutions and customs.

Ostrom touts the model of a self-governed common pool resource (CPR) whereby actors who are major appropriators of the resource, are involved over time in making and adapting rules within collective decision-making institutions concerning inclusion/exclusion of participants, appropriation strategies, participants’ obligations, monitoring and sanctioning conduct, as well as resolving conflicts. Becker supports this model noting that locals make greater efforts to conserve when they believe their own contributions make a difference in alleviating the crisis, especially if they mistrust ‘outsiders’ to have their best interests at heart (Becker 2003). Indeed, designing conservation strategies to suit values of local stakeholders and engaging existing local institutions (rather creating new foreign programs) facilitates the adoption of


sustainable practices (Becker 2003). That said, while self-governance can lead to conservation of natural resources and economic sustainability at a local level (Ostrom, 2002), rural communities in less developed countries do not consistently have the ecological knowledge or the economic capital to achieve stewardship of large natural resources such as intact forests (Wainwright & Wehrmeyer, 1998). External institutions will continue to be necessary for financing and revealing pathways for conservation. Meanwhile, local institutions can play a key role in timely approval or rejection of outside ideas, thereby maintaining cultural integrity (Becker 2003).

Unfortunately, Ostrom’s intellectual legacy has at times been manipulated to suggest a rejection of involvement by government and international agencies. Rather, in an increasingly complex society, Ostrom calls for polycentric resource management, whereby markets and governments at multiple scales interact with communities. In fact, although

some CPRs located far from government centers of influence, it is rare to find any resource system that is not governed in part by regional, national, or international authorities (Ostrom, 2002). However, communities should be allowed to develop local solutions according to their needs and knowledge of their capacity. In an interview at the Libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Ostrom noted:

“The strength of polycentric governance systems is each of the subunits has considerable autonomy to experiment with diverse rules for a particular type of resource system and with different response capabilities to external shock. In experimenting with rule combinations within the smaller-scale units of a polycentric system, citizens and officials have access to local knowledge, obtain rapid feedback from their own policy changes, and can learn from the experience of other parallel units.” (2009)

Regarding her more complex model that challenges us to re-think the ‘tragedy of the


commons’ conceit, Ostrom admits:

“… it ain’t pretty in the sense that it’s nice and neat and many people have tried to get rid of creative solutions that are complex, but society is complex, people are complex. And for us to have simple solutions to complex

problems, not a good idea” (2009).

For her work, in 2009 Elinor Ostrom became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize in economics (formally known as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economics).

Works CitedBecker, Constance Dustin.

“Grassroots to Grassroots: Why Forest Preservation was Rapid at Loma Alta”. World Development (Vol. 31-1). 2003.<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X0200178X>

Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Science. 13 December 1968.

Linquist, Leopold. “The tragedy of the commons as a general environmental problem”.

Philosophy 2070 Lecture Notes. 2012<http://biophilosophy.ca/Teaching/2070materials/leopoldnotes2012.pdf>

Ostrom, Elinor. “Elinor Ostrom Checks In”.NPR Planet Money. October 2009

<http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/10/podcast_elinor_ostrom_checks_i.html>

Ostrum, Elinor. “Common Pool Resources and Institutions: Toward a Revised Theory”

Handbook of Agricultural Economics (Volume II). 2002

Van Vugt, Mark.“Averting the Tragedy of the Commons: Using Social Psychological Science to Protect the Environment”. Current Directions in Psychological Science. June 2009.<http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/18/3/169.full.pdf+html>

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/18/3/169.full.pdf+html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/10/podcast_elinor_ostrom_checks_i.html

http://biophilosophy.ca/Teaching/2070materials/leopoldnotes2012.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X0200178X


Further Reading“Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems” – Elinor Ostrom Nobel Prize Lecture (2009)<http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/ostrom-lecture.html>

“Elinor Ostrom and a new culture in economics” – Gernot Wagner (June 2012)<http://www.gwagner.com/blog/2012/06/elinor-ostrom-and-a-new-culture-in-economics/>

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/ostrom-lecture.html

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/ostrom-lecture.html

http://www.gwagner.com/blog/2012/06/elinor-ostrom-and-a-new-culture-in-economics/

http://www.gwagner.com/blog/2012/06/elinor-ostrom-and-a-new-culture-in-economics/


Promethean TrendsWhat ideas and articles are catching fire among the Prometheans?

Our Gardenbrain Economy, NYTimes.com– Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer (Photo credit: gray318)

“We are prisoners of the metaphors we use, even when they are wildly misleading. Consider how political candidates talk about the economy. Last month President Obama praised immigrants as ‘the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.’ Mitt Romney says that extending the Bush-era tax cuts will “fuel” a recovery. Others fear a ‘stall’ in job growth… What we require now is a new framework for thinking and talking about the economy, grounded in modern understandings of

how things actually work. Economies, as social scientists now understand, aren’t simple, linear and predictable, but complex, nonlinear and ecosystemic. An economy isn’t a machine; it’s a garden. It can be fruitful if well-tended, but will be overrun by noxious weeds if not.”Read the rest at:<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/opinion/our-gardenbrain-economy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print>

Change We Can (and Can’t) Believe In, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs – Colin Steele“The 2012 campaign is kicking into high gear, and it is already rife with stories of doom and gloom… Namely, the trouble is that the most critical victim of globalization and ‘hyper-partisanship’ has been basic agreement on the form, means and end of our political system… we’re starting to reap the whirlwind of our non-existent civics education… everyone speaks about the election as if we were only electing a savior-president and not the hundreds of state and federal legislators and the judicial nominations that will also come with this election.”Read the rest at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/opinion/our-gardenbrain-economy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/opinion/our-gardenbrain-economy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print


<http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/blogs/campus-conversation-on-values/posts/colin-steele-georgetown-on-change-we-can-and-can-t-believe-in>

The Power of Extroverts, TED.com“There’s zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas.” – Susan Cain

Susan Cain is a former corporate lawyer and negotiations consultant – and a self-described

introvert. Author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking , Cain argues that we design our schools, workplaces, and religious institutions for extroverts, and that this bias creates a waste of talent, energy, and happiness. Based on intensive research in psychology and neurobiology and on prolific interviews, she also explains why introverts are capable of great love and great achievement, not in spite of their temperaments – but because of them.See: <http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.html>

Looking BackRawls on Wall Street, NYTimes.com – Steven V. Mazie“Whether it fizzles with the first snowfall or develops into a true counterweight to the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street will go down as the first protest movement in recent memory to shine a critical light on the staggering levels of economic inequality in the United States. But to move forward and make a difference, Occupy Wall Street needs specific goals backed by a more coherent, more inspiring vision for American democracy. To their credit, protestors have recently begun debating which specific demands the movement should make, but their conversations appear to be unguided by any deeper wisdom. A perfect intellectual touchstone would be the work of John Rawls, the American political philosopher who was one of the 20th century’s most influential theorists of equality. Rawls named his theory ‘justice as fairness’, and emphasized in his later writings that its premises are rooted in the history and aspirations

http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.html

http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/blogs/campus-conversation-on-values/posts/colin-steele-georgetown-on-change-we-can-and-can-t-believe-in

http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/blogs/campus-conversation-on-values/posts/colin-steele-georgetown-on-change-we-can-and-can-t-believe-in


of American constitutionalism. So it’s a home-grown theory that is ripe for the picking.”Read the rest at: <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/rawls-on-wall-street/>

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/rawls-on-wall-street/

Promethean Digest I-1

Documents

Transcript of Promethean Digest I-1