RE: [Futurework] smart or dumb?
So Pataki had bought into the myth that the new economy would never go south, eh? Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ray Evans Harrell Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:26 AM To: futurework Subject: [Futurework] smart or dumb? State Unemployment Fund Is Operating in the Red January 29, 2003 By LESLIE EATON New York State's unemployment insurance fund ran out of money last month, forcing the state to borrow $418 million so far from the federal government, according to the New York State Department of Labor. The state has told the federal government that it may have to borrow as much as $760 million. The automatic federal loan means that unemployment benefits for jobless New Yorkers are not at risk. But it may prove expensive, because the most recent loan, on top of two last year, means that the state will have to pay interest on its borrowings, according to the federal Department of Labor. If it had not had to borrow money at the end of the year, New York would have avoided interest charges of 6.3 percent on its $231 million of earlier loans, the principal of which has been repaid. And if all the money the state borrows is not entirely repaid by November 2004, New York businesses face an automatic tax increase under Labor Department rules. That would be on top of an increase in state unemployment taxes that this year will cost companies an average of $50 more per employee, the state's Labor Department said. The increase, to an average of $360 per worker, is automatically imposed when the unemployment insurance fund goes into the red. Gov. George E. Pataki, who presents his budget today, has said he is opposed to job-killing taxes, and he has even proposed small tax cuts or incentives for businesses to create jobs in New York. Texas is the only other state in the current recession that has needed federal help to pay its jobless benefits, although Minnesota has signaled federal officials that it may need a loan. New York State's unemployment insurance program provides up to six months of benefits for jobless people who qualify; the maximum payment is $405 a week. Congress recently extended a separate federal program that gives 13 more weeks of aid to workers who have exhausted their state benefits before finding jobs. Robert M. Lillpopp, a spokesman for the state Labor Department, said that the long-term devastating effects of the World Trade Center disaster and the continuing national recession are to blame for the fund's deficit. Since September 2001, the state's unemployment rate has climbed to 6.3 percent from 5.2 percent, seasonally adjusted; the increase has been even steeper in New York City, where the jobless rate now stands at 8.4 percent, up from 6.6 percent in September 2001. As a result, through mid-December of last year, the unemployment trust fund paid out roughly $650 million more in benefits than it did in the same period of 2001, according to internal fund documents supplied by the New York Unemployment Project, a frequent critic of the state's jobless programs. The project obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Law request, said Jonathan Rosen, an organizer for the group. The fund's revenues, too, rose last year, but by far less than withdrawals to pay benefits. Money from taxes climbed by about $213 million; the state also received $491 million from a one-time federal distribution, some of which went to pay off the outstanding loans. Mr. Rosen contends that the fund's problems were caused not simply by the sharp increase in joblessness, but also by the Pataki administration's decisions to reduce unemployment insurance taxes on businesses and keep the fund's reserves low compared with the reserves in the funds of most other states. It's crucial that people understand that the state made bad tax choices, and that unemployed people are paying the price, Mr. Rosen said. Had tax rates remained at 1994 levels, he said, the state would have billions of dollars for benefits or services for the jobless. The money would also be available to cover more unemployed workers, Mr. Rosen said. Fewer than half of all New Yorkers who lose their jobs receive unemployment benefits, while in Connecticut 75 percent do, and in New Jersey the rate is 57 percent, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project. But the Business Council of New York State supports the practice of keeping fund balances low, even though its members are now facing an automatic tax increase at a time of widespread economic sluggishness. In Albany, there is a strong and never-ending temptation to spend pots of money, even when it is earmarked for other purposes, said Matthew Maguire, director of communications for the council. As for extending or improving benefits, he said, the Legislature always has options above and beyond the fund balances. Given the huge deficits
RE: [Futurework] FWD: The King They Still Won't Talk About
I don't have the time to respond to this completely, but... Bruce Leier 1. King came very late to the anti-Viet Nam war issue. The movement was, by the time he did, already in full swing and King was viewed as a latecomer, drafting safely in behind millions who had already committed themselves publicly to opposition to the war. It is not that his voice wasn't welcome and eloquent, it just came much too late to be decisive or even important. Once in, he did deliver some eloquent speeches against the war, and this is what we remember today because they are handy, powerful and beautiful. [Bruce Leier] I believe he was much more decisive than you state. He came in just before the most significant sit-downs started. I am speaking about the troop sit-downs that really ended the war. Troops went on patrol to the edge of the jungle and refused to go any further. I have friends who have stated that MLK was very influential in their decisions to adapt civil disobedience to Nam warfare. When Nixon knew the troops were not fighting any more he decided to get out. ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] Chomsky interview on Iraq
Chomsky is never afraid to upset people. He does provide a sobering consistent analysis that when ignored (as some here do) keeps many from understanding our reality. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Chomsky interview on Iraq I like the quote the truth shall make ye free, but first it shall make ye miserable. (anon) -Original Message- From: mcandreb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:17 AM To: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Chomsky interview on Iraq Hi Karen, Chomsky usually prompts DEADLY silence from the members of Futurework. Of course Ray acknowledges his awful truth because his people still suffer the consequences of that truth. If you read any of Chomsky's books eg 501, The Conquest Continues you will see that half of his pages are references to unclassified government documents that he and his army of researchers have bothered to unearth. So he is a tough guy to debate. You will notice that Harry doesn't go through Chomsky's brutal truths (eg. the multiple massacres in Central America)and challenge them. That is why the New York Times called Chomsky the most dangerous man in America. And that is why you will never see him on Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw. Doublethink helps us not have to throw up each morning. Take care, Brian Cousin and Brian: If you could comprise a panel of current thinkers and interpreters, what five, living people would you choose to sit and talk and question with Chomsky? I will invite myself to take notes. Karen Once more Chomsky the linguist cuts through the BS.Where will we be when he is no longer here to read for us? REH Interview With Chomsky by Noam Chomsky; Schnews; December 28, 2002 Mark Thomas: If we can start with US foreign policy in relation to Iraq and the War on Terror, what do you think is going on at the moment? Noam Chomsky: First of all I think we ought to be very cautious about using the phrase 'War on Terror'. There can't be a War on Terror. It's a logical impossibility. The US is one of the leading terrorist states in the world. The guys who are in charge right now were all condemned for terrorism by the World Court. They would have been condemned by the U.N. Security Council except they vetoed the resolution, with Britain abstaining of course. These guys can't be conducting a war on terror. It's just out of the question. They declared a war on terror 20 years ago and we know what they did. They destroyed Central America. They killed a million and a half people in southern Africa. We can go on through the list. So there's no 'War on Terror'. There was a terrorist act, September 11th, very unusual, a real historic event, the first time in history that the west received the kind of attack that it carries out routinely in the rest of the world. September 11th did change policy undoubtedly, not just for the US, but across the board. Every government in the world saw it as an opportunity to intensify their own repression and atrocities, from Russia and Chechnya, to the West imposing more discipline on their populations. This had big effects - for example take Iraq. Prior to September 11th, there was a longstanding concern of the US toward Iraq - that is it has the second largest oil reserves in the world. So one way or another the US was going to do something to get it, that's clear. September 11th gave the pretext. There's a change in the rhetoric concerning Iraq after September 11th - 'We now have an excuse to go ahead with what we're planning.' It kinda stayed like that up to September of this year when Iraq suddenly shifted... to 'An imminent threat to our existence.' Condoleeza Rice [US National Security Advisor] came out with her warning that the next evidence of a nuclear weapon would be a mushroom cloud over New York. There was a big media campaign with political figures - we needed to destroy Saddam this winter or we'd all be dead. You've got to kind of admire the intellectual classes not to notice that the only people in the world who are afraid of Saddam Hussien are Americans. Everybody hates him and Iraqis are undoubtedly afraid of him, but outside of Iraq and the United States, no one's afraid of him. Not Kuwait, not Iran, not Israel, not Europe. They hate him, but they're not afraid of him. In the United States people are very much afraid, there's no question about it. The support you see in US polls for the war is very thin, but it's based on fear. It's an old
RE: [Futurework] The Real State of the Union
Oh, yes the real state of the union and no axe to grind. Everybody has an axe to grind. It is called perspective. IMHO, the honest folk tell us what their perspective is before they tell us what they see; the dishonest say they are objective. Halsteads contribution brings to mind one of the best looks at the real US Ive read DISCOVERING AMERICA AS IT IS by Valdas Anelauskas 1999 (Clarity Press, Inc.). Anelauskas was a Soviet dissident who defected to the USA. In the words of Howard Zinn, Valdas arrived with great expectations and discovered a sobering reality. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Karen Watters Cole Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] The Real State of the Union In case you havent seen this, the Atlantic Monthly and New American Foundation (a Washington DC think tank) have combined forces for a symposium in print called The Real State of the Union. You can check out the individual fifteen essays at their website, below. Supposedly, none of the authors have a political axe to grind, as do members of the Bush regime making the rounds trying to gain support for the 2003 Stimulus plan. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/01/union.htm Here is what David Broder, the dean of national journalists had to say about the effort: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25040-2003Jan21.html excerpt from State of the Homeland: The 15 short essays, outlining domestic challenges facing the nation and proposing unconventional ways of dealing with them, comprise an exhilarating and mind-stretching way of thinking about where the United States stands at this moment. The message of these essays is that this gap not only threatens the growth of a healthy middle class but also contributes to the worrisome loss of social trust among Americans. Republicans continually decry class warfare rhetoric from their opponents, but the Atlantic Monthly essays show how current and proposed tax policies are sharpening class lines. In the final essay, Ted Halstead, the founder and head of the New America Foundation, describes the American paradox -- the richest, most powerful nation suffering from higher rates of poverty, infant mortality, homicide and HIV infection, and from greater income inequality, than other advanced democracies. Rebuilding a solid center for such a nation, he says, will require a new social contract, protecting economic freedom and flexibility but seeking social fairness. This project -- which is to be repeated by the magazine annually -- represents a serious start in that direction. Karen Watters Cole East of Portland, West of Mt Hood Outgoing mail scanned by NAV 2002
RE: [Futurework] The District of Colour Bar
Please do! Then I could move there permanently. Even at my advanced age Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] The District of Colour Bar Who says that Canada wants to be annexed?? arthur Perhaps we should offer provincehood to the US -- under very strict conditions of course. Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 -Original Message- From: Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tanya Campbell Subject: RE: [Futurework] The District of Colour Bar Yes, Tanya this was a good read, part humor part dirty facts. If it weren't for the fact that the seat of government takes up so much of it's real estate, Washington DC would be just another urban renewal project in some ways. But hey, they've got great real estate and the Smithsonian, too. Guess it should be noted that the lost margin keeps getting smaller on legislation to give DC residents their own reps in Congress. As soon as there is a change in majorityship, this effort might just succeed after many attempts, another example of dogged democracy, if not fluid democracy. I would at least hope that DC gets official recognition before we annex Canada and incorporate Israel. Karen Watters Cole East of Portland, West of Mt Hood Outgoing mail scanned by NAV 2002 A great piece in the Guardian this morning on Washington DC's racism and contradictions/hipocracy surrounding it as the center of democracy. It also touches on something that is often missed when talking about the US and that is the state capitals, centres of where democracy is to be practiced are not often much more than manmade suburbs at their best (DC is an extreme example of this). And from this structure, the vocal minority in those capitals and surrounding often have more ability to drown out the voice of those in cities. (I humbly await pro-suburb criticism.) Regards, Tanya Campbell - The District of Colour Bar Engel in America Matthew Engel Tuesday January 21, 2003 The Guardian It is commonplace in the media to use the names of capital cities as shorthand for the opinions of a country: Washington thinks this; London agrees; Paris doesn't. And so on. It is an odd formulation in any case, especially when you're talking about Washington. What is Washington? Even the leading citizens have some trouble grasping that. It is possible to read books with Washington in the title that make you imagine the entire city is given over to cocktail parties with senators dropping confidentialities under the chandeliers. Indeed, it is possible to live here for years and believe that. For this could be the most racially segregated city in the world. It is certainly the most segregated I have seen since Johannesburg circa 1976. Of course, all cities are economically stratified in a manner that produces de facto segregation. But in Washington this takes on extreme form. The whites live in the north-western sliver of the city: a wealthy corridor stretching down to the city centre. The rest of the place, with small (though, it is true, growing) exceptions, is overwhelmingly black. Guidebooks always warn first-time visitors about the quirks of Washington's grid system. The city is divided into four quadrants, and every address is repeated four times. So if you have to go to the corner of, say, 21st and K Streets, it is necessary to specify whether you mean the NW, NE, SW or SE quadrant. But if a white visitor gets into a taxi, the driver just drives straight to the north-western version. Why the hell would you be going anywhere else? The second oddity is that this is the least democratic city in any allegedly free country. The District of Columbia was never given the same rights as the states: in the early days of the republic, the federal government, uncertain of its status, wanted a small patch to call its own, which at the time was probably fair enough. As the city grew, it became absurd, indeed outrageous. The population grew to 800,000 (it is under 600,000 now), but since they were mainly black people or white liberals and thus staunchly Democratic rather than Republican, logic and justice went out of the window. In 1961, when the US was a mere 185 years old, the city finally gained the right to vote for president. A form of home rule followed, though Congress still has unique rights in bossing the place about. Since for many years DC was run by the ridiculous Mayor Marion Barry, there was a case for maintaining those rights. Barry has gone
[Futurework] RE: Corporations (was The Solar Economy)
As you are against corporate theft, you obviously are against the tariff and quota structure that adds so much to the prices of all the goods we buy. To reel you in, I had better say that raise the prices of goods bought by poor people. So you are a free trader. [Bruce Leier] Where do you come up with this nonsense? I know too that you are against the patents that raise the prices of drugs to old people. [Bruce Leier] ok. As I've mentioned, I have belonged, for forty years, to one of the best HMO's in the country - Kaiser Permanente. I get drugs at a big discount. Generic drugs are $10 (for say 100 pills). The patented drugs are $25 - though they often supply two rather than one for the price. I'm sure they use their mammoth buying power to get the cheap prices. I use an asthma treatment spray. Two sprays cost me $25 dollars and last for 100 days - about $87.50 a year. I checked Cosco for the price. It was $71 a spray - or about $500 a year. This is a new spray that replaced another which was long used but sometimes gave problems. The old spray was a generic. Four were supplied for $10. These lasted for 148 days. So the annual cost was about $25. However, at Cosco, the price for one was $63. For a year, this would cost me $630. My asthma is mild, so I wish they hadn't changed. Maybe severe cases need a better treatment, but they have to standardize to get a good price. On the other hand, did the pharmaceuticals get to Kaiser and turn them to a more expensive spray? Kaiser is run by the doctors - but faced by mounting costs, is this (and perhaps other instances) their way to increase revenue? I don't know, but I doubt it. I trust them to do whatever will generally best treat their patients. However, as I said, for years I used an asthma spray that cost me about $25 a year. If I had paid the brand name price it would have cost me $630. Same spray - the difference is the patent law.. The difference is the privilege bestowed on the pharmaceutical companies by the people who are supposed to represent us. Then, liberal thought is apparently to tax these receipts of privilege. This means the money is collected from poor and ill people by the pharmaceutical corporations - there to suffer taxation. Then, continues liberal addled thinking, the poor will be subsidized by universal health care, or medicaid, or some other such program. These programs will then pay the high price of drugs, which goes to the pharmaceutical corporations, to be taxed, so it can pay part of the cost of the high priced drugs. [Bruce Leier] What was that all about? Brilliant! If they were radicals instead of wimps, liberals would get rid of the privileges. [Bruce Leier] Liberals can't be radicals. The tautology may be fundamentalist-conservative-radical-moderate-liberal (in no particular order meant or implied). But? Oh, but then research in new drugs would end. [Bruce Leier] Why is that? It is of course utter nonsense from a true believer'. Oh, my gosh! So, now we get the new drugs, but the majority of people can't afford them anyway, so their invention doesn't matter much to most people. In fact, as I've said, half the drugs research is not carried out by the pharmaceutical corporations. Again, the corporations spend more money on advertising than research. Yet, again, I wonder how much those corporations spend on their sycophants (there is a pharmaceutical lobbyist for every two congressmen). This is only one part of the network of privilege that is provided by government to the fat cats who screw us. I bet Al Gore would have done something about it (after he had handled Global Warming, of course). So, Bruce, if you want to light a candle rather than curse the darkness, support free trade for the US and hammer privilege - perhaps beginning with patents. I suppose that's my rant for today. [Bruce Leier] It sure was. rofl Harry Bruce wrote: Really free market is what? Other than a fairy tale! They are a problem as long as they are considered persons and have perpetual life. There are a lot of us who do not try to externalize costs my friend! There are many who recognize theft when we see it and are about justice to work to see the stolen returned or paid for by those who benefit from the theft. Bruce Leier ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *** ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] RE: Corporations (was One word: 'coal' Yessir.)
Harry, Thanks again. So, who do we blame? The briber? The bribee? Why not both? You prove my point. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:40 PM To: Bruce Leier; 'Ray Evans Harrell'; 'Brad McCormick, Ed.D.'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Corporations (was One word: 'coal' Yessir.) Bruce wrote: Ray, Well said. Maybe Harry is right to criticize me for blaming it on corporations. But then maybe not! Don't all the greed-heads and destroyers use corporate cover? Bruce Leier Corporations get criminal, but legal, power from the government. The people in government are corrupted by money (also jobs and suchlike). Do you believe that these paid sycophants of corporations will do anything to limit the power of those corporations - particularly as they have enhanced that power? Finally, do you think it matters whether government is Republican or Democrat? Harry ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *** ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] RE: Corporations (was One word: 'coal' Yessir.)
I agree it makes a difference. But clearly not enough. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 10:13 PM To: Bruce Leier; 'Brad McCormick, Ed.D.'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry Pollard Subject: Re: Corporations (was One word: 'coal' Yessir.) Finally, do you think it matters whether government is Republican or Democrat? Harry Well, yes Harry I do think it makes a difference. Ray ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] One word: 'coal' Yessir. (From: The Yale 68 Skull and Bones Graduate)
Ray, Well said. Maybe Harry is right to criticize me for blaming it on corporations. But then maybe not! Don't all the greed-heads and destroyers use corporate cover? Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 6:05 PM To: Brad McCormick, Ed.D.; Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Harry Pollard' Subject: Re: [Futurework] One word: 'coal' Yessir. (From: The Yale 68 Skull and Bones Graduate) Of course the earth cries and Harry never tires of saying that we have all of that coal but what he doesn't say is that you will have to destroy much of the Rocky Mountains to get it out. Colorado as the new West Virginia. I would feel bad for all of these Republican Ranchers but the only reason they are crying is because it is THEIR ranch and not some one else. They have two senators in Congress and less than a million people.Their senator was that colorful character Alan Simpson, who now teaches at the Kennedy School at Harvard and who stuck us with more than a few of the inadaquate conservatives on the Supreme Court while trashing Anita Hill a graduate of Fundamentalist Oral Roberts University and who was born and raised in my father's hometown Morris, Oklahoma in the Creek Nation. Well, folks, I've been there. My hometown Picher is their future and before they had their burning water we had tar creek where children played and absorbed lead, zinc, cadmium, mercury and other heavy metals. Horses waded in the creek and the alkaline water ate the hair right off their legs. These Republican Wyomans had better grow to like the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn which also burns and they may as well get used to polluted aquafers, ground that will grow nothing because it has been so chewed up for the coal that it is an unworkable stone and dirt mix, and bad water brined with salt and sulphur. To hell with beauty.Down with the environment. After all this is the world and they are NOT of this world but simply in it for a time, as they will tell you themselves if you listen truly to what they are saying. Of course that whole area is one giant Caldera and it is bound to blow at some point or other.When it does, it will be worse than the Asteroid everyone keeps speaking about and could mean the end of humanity but until then George W. will tweak the sleeping beast and try to steal a few golden scales off of the sleeping dragon. Gollum, Gollum? Is it any wonder that the commercial artists are making so many movies about dragons these days with methane breath? Once its done, maybe they can turn it into something like Central City with the Opera and gambling.But in order to have that kind of business on ruined used up land you need a big city next door like Denver and they don't have that.It will take more than Metamusal to keep Old Faithful Geyser working in this sick environment.In flow and out go and that is all that matters in the world right?Shall I talk about the morals of the wretched refuse or the walking wounded again or maybe I should just talk about all of those rich folks who are creating another Venezuala right here in the good ole' US of A.In flow and out go?Maybe that is the key to how that Caldera is going to blow and we are all going to die. REH December 29, 2002 Ranchers Bristle as Gas Wells Loom on the Range By BLAINE HARDEN and DOUGLAS JEHL GILLETTE, Wyo. - As it runs through Orin Edwards's ranch, the Belle Fourche River bubbles like Champagne. The bubbles can burn. They are methane, also called natural gas, the fuel that heats 59 million American homes. Mr. Edwards noticed the bubbles two years ago, after gas wells were drilled on his land. The company that drilled the wells denies responsibility for the flammable river. An hour's drive west, the artesian well on Roland and Beverly Landrey's ranch has failed. After producing 50 gallons a minute for 34 years, the well, the ranch's only source of water, stopped flowing in September. A well digger who examined it blames energy companies drilling for gas nearby, but the companies dispute that. So the couple - he is 83 and ailing; she describes herself as no spring chicken - hauls water in gallon jugs and drives 30 miles to town weekly to wash clothes and bathe. Dave Bullach, a welder who lives near Gillette, couldn't take it anymore. For two sleep-deprived years, he endured the incessant yowl of a methane compressor, a giant pump that squeezes methane into an underground pipeline. There are thousands of these screaming machines in Wyoming, where neither state nor federal law regulates their noise. Mr. Bullach stormed out of his house at midnight last year with a rifle and shot at the compressor until a sheriff's deputy hauled him off to jail. This is the cantankerous world of energy extraction in the Rocky Mountain West, where natural gas
RE: [Futurework] Lovins on oil and transport and future works
Fred was an OK populist, who once had my support for president. An early entrant on my list of backed losing candidates. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brad McCormick, Ed.D. Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 5:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Lovins on oil and transport and future works [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven't read it all, but makes my point. Has all the gee whiz strategies to make cars lighter, fuel efficient, etc., but never questions why the emphasis on cars and not on public transport. The current system is OK just needs lots and lots of high tech gadgetry. Never heard Lovins speak out against SUVs, suburban sprawl, etc. I forget which election it was, but there was a candidate for U.S. President (from Oklahoma?): Fred Harris, one of whose platform planks was to change the zoning laws so that persons lived closer to where they worked so that transportation overhead on the U.S. economy would be minimized. Who's Fred Harris? Huh? \brad mccormick arthur -Original Message- From: Stephen Straker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 8:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Lovins on oil and transport and future works FWers - Here is a 1995 essay on a hybrid car by the Lovinses. It identifies and takes on the political and economic forces arrayed against the future. Along the way it takes up the question of oil and Iraq. Comments? [snip] -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) ![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] RE: The Solar Economy
Harry, It's is you who is stretching to justify how corporations steal from the commonweal. Corporations don't pay. Remember. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:25 PM To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The Solar Economy Bruce, It's called science and it can apply to anything. Let's not stretch too far. Harry Bruce wrote: They most certainly do. There are land-grant colleges doing research in new methodologies for coal slurries and new methods of burning coal and extracting oil. As I have said before the main corporate methodology is to externalize costs and government (which includes our colleges) is a willing swallower of those costs. Bruce Leier ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *** ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] RE: The Solar Economy
They most certainly do. There are land-grant colleges doing research in new methodologies for coal slurries and new methods of burning coal and extracting oil. As I have said before the main corporate methodology is to externalize costs and government (which includes our colleges) is a willing swallower of those costs. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 4:42 PM To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The Solar Economy Bruce, I would have thought that oil didn't get any kind of government subsidy. Also coal surely didn't. But, I repeat that it would be better if there no government subsidies for any energy source. Two problems arise from subsidies. One is that it throws off the market mechanism, so you don't know which is the best fuel. Second, it directs research in a particular direction, which may not be the best. This means major money goes chasing after perhaps a false path. At the same time, those who might be interested in pursuing innovative alternatives are dissuaded by the enormous advantage enjoyed by those subsidized. In other words, perhaps solar, wind, and nuclear might now be supplying us with electricity if government were not involved. Harry --- Bruce wrote: Harry, I do not know of any energy technology that did not get its start and/or a big boost through subsidies of some kind. Oil certainly did. And nuclear really did, too. Do you say those subsidies were bad? Or is it only new subsidies that are bad? What has changed other than who are the economic royalists? WWHGsay? Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 1:27 AM To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The Solar Economy Bruce, If the presenter was correct, the $27,000 cost of each wind turbine was written off with special tax advantages. That was the point I was making. I would be happy to have no subsidies of any kind for any method of producing power. As it is, how does that $27,000 mix into the cost pkh? Harry --- Bruce wrote: Harry, Seems to be a lot of conclusions and judgments without many facts or much data. What was the cost pkh? What is the cost pkh? Give us that; then we can discuss something. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 5:27 PM To: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Keith Hudson Subject: RE: The Solar Economy Karen, I was waiting to give a paper at an AAAS annual conference (obviously, my paper was the reason for good attendance). The guy ahead of me was giving a paper on the economics of wind turbines. I had vaguely notice in the LA Times proposals for investment in these things. The ads were careful to say you needed an income of $250,000 - or a net worth rather more than that. If you qualified, you could reap lucrative rewards from government tax breaks. He estimated that each wind turbine cost $27,000 - hidden in the tax breaks, and never appearing in any balance sheet. My thought was forget them as an energy source except in special locations. The economist had other ideas. His recommendation was that the tax break system should end. Instead, there should be direct subsidy by the Federal government. The fact that the electricity produced was prohibitively expensive apparently didn't occur to him. That was 20-30 years ago. I assume that during this time, the cost of a turbine has gone up, but the efficiency of the turbines will also have gone up. I wonder what the cost of a kilowatt is now? The economist's advice was taken. If you install a wind turbine, California will now pay half the cost along with giving a tax credit of 7.5%. I don't know how the new wind-farms are financed. The put the solars out in the desert. Didn't help. Solar hot water heaters are in the yellow pages in Florida. They are also used, I understand, all over North Africa. But, so far, as a replacement for coal, oil, or nuclear - no luck. Fuel cells don't produce power, though from the excitement they cause, one would think they are the definitive answer to non-renewables. The answer to their use at the moment is Bah! Humbug! In Southern California. now the daily temperature is down into the 60's - practically freezing. (We may even get some rain
[Futurework] RE: The Solar Economy
Harry, I do not know of any energy technology that did not get its start and/or a big boost through subsidies of some kind. Oil certainly did. And nuclear really did, too. Do you say those subsidies were bad? Or is it only new subsidies that are bad? What has changed other than who are the economic royalists? WWHGsay? Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 1:27 AM To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The Solar Economy Bruce, If the presenter was correct, the $27,000 cost of each wind turbine was written off with special tax advantages. That was the point I was making. I would be happy to have no subsidies of any kind for any method of producing power. As it is, how does that $27,000 mix into the cost pkh? Harry --- Bruce wrote: Harry, Seems to be a lot of conclusions and judgments without many facts or much data. What was the cost pkh? What is the cost pkh? Give us that; then we can discuss something. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 5:27 PM To: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Keith Hudson Subject: RE: The Solar Economy Karen, I was waiting to give a paper at an AAAS annual conference (obviously, my paper was the reason for good attendance). The guy ahead of me was giving a paper on the economics of wind turbines. I had vaguely notice in the LA Times proposals for investment in these things. The ads were careful to say you needed an income of $250,000 - or a net worth rather more than that. If you qualified, you could reap lucrative rewards from government tax breaks. He estimated that each wind turbine cost $27,000 - hidden in the tax breaks, and never appearing in any balance sheet. My thought was forget them as an energy source except in special locations. The economist had other ideas. His recommendation was that the tax break system should end. Instead, there should be direct subsidy by the Federal government. The fact that the electricity produced was prohibitively expensive apparently didn't occur to him. That was 20-30 years ago. I assume that during this time, the cost of a turbine has gone up, but the efficiency of the turbines will also have gone up. I wonder what the cost of a kilowatt is now? The economist's advice was taken. If you install a wind turbine, California will now pay half the cost along with giving a tax credit of 7.5%. I don't know how the new wind-farms are financed. The put the solars out in the desert. Didn't help. Solar hot water heaters are in the yellow pages in Florida. They are also used, I understand, all over North Africa. But, so far, as a replacement for coal, oil, or nuclear - no luck. Fuel cells don't produce power, though from the excitement they cause, one would think they are the definitive answer to non-renewables. The answer to their use at the moment is Bah! Humbug! In Southern California. now the daily temperature is down into the 60's - practically freezing. (We may even get some rain in the next few days.) So playing with these toys isn't crucial. But, in the North-East and Mid-West they can't heat their homes with fantasies. Babies with pneumonia aren't a pretty sight. So, the alternatives aren't particularly practical. They may become so in due course, but at the moment - Marley's ghost has nothing to offer. Bah, Humbug! Harry --- - --- Karen wrote: Harry, you are such a Scrooge: Bah, Humbug on all these new fangled energy projects! Light bulbs weren't that great when first invented. Telephones are much improved, some would say not for our benefit. Everyone agrees the auto is a better vehicle for transportation that the family mule, though a mule's emissions problems didn't impact as wide an area as airborne carbons do now and it could be recycled. We don't even want to start a thread about how much better medical science is that how it was practiced initially. Your arguments below against newer developments into sustainable energy projects seem to reflect the bottom line that if it doesn't work for me, right here in my own backyard, then it is doomed to failure. Sure, the new ideas are still being developed and will probably be best used as backups in the energy grid, but we need all the backups we can use. I haven't noticed too many people in California voluntarily riding their bikes to work, using oil lamps at home unless forced to by blackouts. Call me a Pollyanna
RE: The Solar Economy
Harry, Seems to be a lot of conclusions and judgments without many facts or much data. What was the cost pkh? What is the cost pkh? Give us that; then we can discuss something. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 5:27 PM To: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Keith Hudson Subject: RE: The Solar Economy Karen, I was waiting to give a paper at an AAAS annual conference (obviously, my paper was the reason for good attendance). The guy ahead of me was giving a paper on the economics of wind turbines. I had vaguely notice in the LA Times proposals for investment in these things. The ads were careful to say you needed an income of $250,000 - or a net worth rather more than that. If you qualified, you could reap lucrative rewards from government tax breaks. He estimated that each wind turbine cost $27,000 - hidden in the tax breaks, and never appearing in any balance sheet. My thought was forget them as an energy source except in special locations. The economist had other ideas. His recommendation was that the tax break system should end. Instead, there should be direct subsidy by the Federal government. The fact that the electricity produced was prohibitively expensive apparently didn't occur to him. That was 20-30 years ago. I assume that during this time, the cost of a turbine has gone up, but the efficiency of the turbines will also have gone up. I wonder what the cost of a kilowatt is now? The economist's advice was taken. If you install a wind turbine, California will now pay half the cost along with giving a tax credit of 7.5%. I don't know how the new wind-farms are financed. The put the solars out in the desert. Didn't help. Solar hot water heaters are in the yellow pages in Florida. They are also used, I understand, all over North Africa. But, so far, as a replacement for coal, oil, or nuclear - no luck. Fuel cells don't produce power, though from the excitement they cause, one would think they are the definitive answer to non-renewables. The answer to their use at the moment is Bah! Humbug! In Southern California. now the daily temperature is down into the 60's - practically freezing. (We may even get some rain in the next few days.) So playing with these toys isn't crucial. But, in the North-East and Mid-West they can't heat their homes with fantasies. Babies with pneumonia aren't a pretty sight. So, the alternatives aren't particularly practical. They may become so in due course, but at the moment - Marley's ghost has nothing to offer. Bah, Humbug! Harry --- Karen wrote: Harry, you are such a Scrooge: Bah, Humbug on all these new fangled energy projects! Light bulbs weren't that great when first invented. Telephones are much improved, some would say not for our benefit. Everyone agrees the auto is a better vehicle for transportation that the family mule, though a mule's emissions problems didn't impact as wide an area as airborne carbons do now and it could be recycled. We don't even want to start a thread about how much better medical science is that how it was practiced initially. Your arguments below against newer developments into sustainable energy projects seem to reflect the bottom line that if it doesn't work for me, right here in my own backyard, then it is doomed to failure. Sure, the new ideas are still being developed and will probably be best used as backups in the energy grid, but we need all the backups we can use. I haven't noticed too many people in California voluntarily riding their bikes to work, using oil lamps at home unless forced to by blackouts. Call me a Pollyanna, but I think that attempts to broaden our base for energy sources should be considered. No matter that they've just discovered huge wells of natural gas off the coast of India, (1) or that there may be a pipeline through northern Russia for its oil in another decade, we have to look at the needs of the future, not just living off the past. PacificCorp built a wind farm between Portland and Pendleton, Oregon in 3 months last fall. Works great and annoys just the birds, not the cows. PGE built a smaller-sized urban power plant in 6 months, and it immediately began acting as a supplement to the bigger plants. Some cities have tapped into their underground aquifers to heating city buildings, saving taxpayer money. It all adds up, and the supplements are accomplished quickly without huge voter or corporate commitment. So they weren't smart enough to put wind farms out in the countryside in S. California. The ones between the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley have been in place since when, the 70s? Wouldn't those poles cycling in the wind be a nicer view interruption than oil
RE: US appointments question
It really is quite simple. Whatever it takes to empower the ruling class and enfeeble the majority of the people. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: US appointments question This I don't understand. I thought that right wingers didn't want deficits and always accused the lefties of spend, spend, spend. Maybe the right wingers will accept deficits as long as taxes are cut, maybe they will accept anything as long as taxes are cut. === Bush nominee Stephen Friedman comes under fire: We are doing everything we can to quash this appointment, said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a pro-tax-cut lobby group. We're not real high on him. He is a deficit-phobic. (Reuters) http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNewsstoryID=18818 49
RE: Interesting conjunction
If you said that to dubya he would wonder how one can swallow lafter. I'm sure he can't spell either. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lawrence DeBivort Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 8:28 AM To: Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Interesting conjunction Greetings Keith, The rumor here in Washington is that O'Neill opposed the Iraq war on the grounds, if no other, that the US cannot afford it, and that he saw an economic train wreck coming if Bush persisted with his tax-cut goal. Bush has swallowed the Lafer Curve argument. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 3:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Interesting conjunction An interesting conjunction of events is about to take place. In an hour or two Saddam Hussein is going release thousands of pages of information about the war-readiness of Iraq. He's cocking a snoop at both theUS and the UN by making sure that a summary in English will be released to journalists first in Baghdad. There's little doubt in my mind that the report will (truthfully) show that Iraq is of no danger to the rest of the world. In the last 24 hours, Bush has sacked Paul O'Neill because, apparently, he has spoken out against the policy of further tax cuts for those with large incomes. But the decisions were taken quite a long time ago. Why wasn't O'Neill sacked then? What is significant is that Bush hasn't yet chosen a successor. Nor has a replacement been chosen to replace Harvey Pitt at the head of the SEC. This is curious. Bush is in a dilemma. On the one hand, it is likely that he knows that he will not be able to mount any sort of thorough-going invasion of Iraq because: (a) he has almost no support from the rest of the world, and (b) Saddam Hussein is as secure as ever and ordinary Iraqis will fight fiercely in the streets of the major cities and inflict heavy casualties on American soldiers. On the other hand, Bush also knows that the American economy is still showing no signs of being able to pick itself up. But he badly needs this to happen by next summer at the latest if he is going to make sure of being re-elected in 2004. Until then, unemployment, now at 6%, is almost certainly going to mount steadily in all three important areas of employment -- service, manufacturing and retail. O'Neill was nothing more than a cheerleader. He had nothing coherent or cogent to say and people soon learned to take little notice of him. In any case, the position of the Treasury Secretary was not an important one. The man with the real power, Greenspan, could have been speaking out in the past few months but has said nothing. But what can he say? Or do? Lower interest rates would make no difference to the present investment impasse. Bush badly need growth and he badly needs someone with stature to supply him with an economic policy. But he's not going to get either. Neither he, nor anybody else, will be able to shorten the long period of purging, reform, and recovery of confidence (by both corporate and private investors) that's now required by the American economy after the biggest stock market bubble (indeed, it was a double bubble) in its history. In short, because his second term is now at stake and the economy is not going to respond whatever he does, Bush is going to be under far more stress than he's been so far, despite 9/11. Considering his alcoholic history, I would not lay a great deal of confidence in his mental health in the coming two years. Keith Hudson -- -- -- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ __
RE: Arabenrein?
Thankfully he doesnt have the power to be a murderous as he wants others to be. Frightening that such insanity is printed. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William B Ward Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Arabenrein? FWers I was wondering about your feelings regarding Alan Dershowitz' call for destruction of entire Palestinian villages from which an attack against Israel emanates: http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher.asp Bill Ward
RE: Arabenrein?
Or the US in Dresden. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 4:28 PM To: Bruce Leier; 'William B Ward'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Arabenrein? Bruce and Bill, How ironic that this was a policy of the Nazis. Harry -- Bruce wrote: Thankfully he doesn t have the power to be a murderous as he wants others to be. Frightening that such insanity is printed. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William B Ward Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Arabenrein? FWers I was wondering about your feelings regarding Alan Dershowitz' call for destruction of entire Palestinian villages from which an attack against Israel emanates: http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher.asphttp://www.nationalrev iew.com /dreher/dreher.asp Bill Ward ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 ***
RE: My speculation
Yes and who will invade the US. They killed and had killed friends of mine. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 1:16 PM To: William B Ward; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: My speculation Oh. Well, that's a good reason to invade a country. I guess that means we must invade Chile, VietNam, Colombia, Israel, Palestine, and Russia, too, for my part. Anyone else have a grudge that they want to see Bush jr. avenge for them? Lawry Even as a left wing Quaker, I hope Bush does occupy southern Iraq. Saddaam assassinated a personal friend of mine.
RE: An Uncertain Presidency An Uncertain Time (was an Uncertain Britain)
Just a thought on this thread. Harry keeps harping on the illegal actions of the state supremes. I wonder why Harry doesn't say anything about the illegal actions of Harris Jeb to deny people their right to vote? We gotta slap those supremes but no remedy for those denied their rights. Of course that must be the greogian way Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Paull Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: An Uncertain Presidency An Uncertain Time (was an Uncertain Britain) Hi Arthur et al, Every President lies all the time, using national security as the excuse. It was about sex as that is a topic that the accusers felt would be understood by the public, especially their religious supporters. And the press loved it as they do with anything with sexual overtones. Just check out your supermarket checkout counter to see what Americans (and others?) are reading. The current Administrations appear to be imprisoning citizens without access to Constitutionally proscribed access to legal council. I would consider this much more of an impeachable offense than lieing about an affair. Don't you? Dennis Paull Half Moon Bay, CA At 10:15 AM 9/3/2002 Tuesday , you wrote: Clinton lied under oath. For the chief law enforcement officer of the nation this sets a bad example. You can't run a nation on a wink and a nod. It was not about sex. arthur -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 12:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William B Ward Subject: Re: An Uncertain Presidency An Uncertain Time (was an Uncertain Britain) - Original Message - From: William B Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:55 PM Subject: Re: An Uncertain Presidency An Uncertain Time (was an Uncertain Britain) Lawry, You can't treat a crook honorably. Gore's mistake was that he failed to distance himself early and sincerely from Clinton. Bill Ward Nonsense, if any one of us had fifty million dollars spent on entrapment we would all fail. I usually agree with you but your statement makes no sense to me whatever having lived there and worked in the White House. I've worked in every situation other than a metal factory and there is not a single soul that would escape such scrutiny.I would venture that IF there is one, he or she is devoid of initiative and would consider imagination a mortal curse. What you got Clinton for would have been laughed off in the past as civilized and gentlemanly and Ken Starr would have been considered the religious lying fanatic that he is.Read his church dogma and then ask yourself how he could send his beloved children to an Ivy League school believing that horse doo doo.Princeton would be like sending them to live in the wealthiest red light district in the city. Was he supposed to convert them or was he just self-serving and hypocritical? Remember MDs used to masterbate women as relief for hysteria. That is the mentality that is created from the mind of a Ken Starr. Opera makes you look at lots of different cultural alternatives. The Italians are more civilized on this.They give the concubines of their leaders businesses and help them make a living for the rest of their lives. Only this nutty puritanical Judeo-Christian culture makes sex a sin and lying about it a felony and then elects an alcoholic who lies about his drugs and women, serves alcohol in the White House when his religion forbids it and makes him a hero of the alleged religious right wing. No wonder we are going into another ritual of human sacrifice in Iraq.Raising the speed limit ten miles an hour and murdering the young and retarded in prison didn't provide enough respite for all of those new babies born as a result of making abortion a sin.Well it is all a sin in that nutty system. But crook? No Nixon was a crook, Clinton was a human being with the crazy guilts of his religion but the intelligence to continue to be a half way decent President in spite of them. I usually agree with you but you got me on this one. Ray Evans Harrell
RE: Collapsing schools
Harry, Just listen to yourself! I would bet you that those California minority mothers would have no knowledge of your New York bank; but you say that caused them (I think that is what you mean by why) to support vouchers. I also find it interesting that you went from all minority mothers to caring minority mothers. It is amazing the rhetorical flourishes with judgmental adjectives. Anyone who supports your position is caring; those who don't are uncaring? I still think you are a nice man. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:59 PM To: Bruce Leier; 'Ray Evans Harrell'; 'Karen Watters Cole'; 'Keith Hudson' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Collapsing schools Bruce, A New York bank decided to set up a program to hire minority kids. They were ill-educated, so the bank set up a program to teach them the basics of literacy and numeracy. On average, the 6 week course raised the students by two grades. This is why in California, caring minority mothers have consistently voted for vouchers and anything else that would enable them to get their kids into better schools. Harry --- Bruce wrote: Gee gang, The world must be different in places other than Minnesota. There have been many of us here believing and working to teach children how to teach themselves. But we constantly get waylaid by corporate and business interests that in essence say - such knowledge is dangerous. We must prepare the kiddies for the real world of business and commerce. We must be practical. My 40 years of consciousness about learning has taught me that our economic leaders do not want educated people. They want good learners. They end up with neither. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:38 PM To: Ray Evans Harrell; Karen Watters Cole; Keith Hudson; Bruce Leier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Collapsing schools Ray, You'll recall my division of knowledge into two - the knowledge of truths and the knowledge of things. Things have to be taught, but it's better if kids are taught how to teach themselves. They should learn how to learn. The knowledge of truths is really an appreciation and understanding of relationships - a knowledge that something is so. Perhaps a knowledge of truths sends a journeyman violinist toward soloist stature. The problem public schools have is tied to their need to prove that students are learning something. So, they learn that Paris is the Capital of France. This can be tested and used to show how educated the student is. If they don't happen to do Paris, they may never know it's the capital of France. Why Paris is the capital, why it is situated where it is, should be easy for them to answer because of their knowledge of truths - which understanding should work for London, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, and so on. And if their knowledge of truths doesn't fit with (say) Berlin, they should be able to figure out why - again from their knowledge of truths. Truths allow the student to approach a situation unmet before and get a handle on it. Probably, the best way to test truths is by essay - an endangered species in the modern US public school. What teacher wants to spend his weekend perusing, correcting, and marking, 170 essays? So, it's multiple choice to the rescue - enabling the teacher to prove how much is known by the student. And it is all cleaned of by quitting time. I'm sure all FWs know that a multiple choice test can be chosen, printed, marked, and graded - without being touched by the teacher's hand. Harry --- - Cuz wrote: Good post Karen.I think what is missing with rote education is the place that it fits in the development of critical thought and memory. Good pedagogy uses all of the tools, not just one or the other.The man who taught over your heads was a poor pedagogist but terrific on content. His problem is a well known one in the performing arts where great artists retire to teaching and teach the first year of instruction that they remember over and over again until they retire. It takes a great student to really open up these hard nuts which is a pity.It would be better if they had met and enjoyed some of the great pedagogists that I have known who understood the order of growth, the tools of teaching and the excitement of success. Cousin REH ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 ***
RE: More Porkie Pies?
Arthur, I guess I just don't get it. What golden goose? What case after case? Please explain to me how the market...harness(es) greed. In what cases do you grant that the state running things does work? (Just trying to establish a base-line of agreement.) And, lastly, do you see any possibly of anything other than the market or the state? Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 7:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: More Porkie Pies? Ahhh, if it were only that simple. Nationalization seemed to be the answer. But a takeover of private assets led to killing the golden goose in case after case. The market seems to be the way to harness greed and turn it into productivity. When the state runs things for the people , -- in most cases-- it doesn't work. arthur cordell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More Porkie Pies? On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Arthur Cordell wrote: That is the challenge. How to distribute the incredible wealth of our economy. The communists/socialists had an ideology for a time when goods could potentially be free, but had no viable economic system to get to that state. The capitalists seem to have solved the production problem but have no ideology of what to do next, of how to distribute goods when they are plentiful. Well, if it's that simple, why not serialize the two?: First let capitalism solve the production problem (=provide the viable economic system that the socialists lacked), and then let the socialists tell them how to distribute goods when they are plentiful (=the ideology of what to do next that the capitalists lacked). ;-) Chris
RE: Collapsing schools
Gee gang, The world must be different in places other than Minnesota. There have been many of us here believing and working to teach children how to teach themselves. But we constantly get waylaid by corporate and business interests that in essence say - such knowledge is dangerous. We must prepare the kiddies for the real world of business and commerce. We must be practical. My 40 years of consciousness about learning has taught me that our economic leaders do not want educated people. They want good learners. They end up with neither. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:38 PM To: Ray Evans Harrell; Karen Watters Cole; Keith Hudson; Bruce Leier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Collapsing schools Ray, You'll recall my division of knowledge into two - the knowledge of truths and the knowledge of things. Things have to be taught, but it's better if kids are taught how to teach themselves. They should learn how to learn. The knowledge of truths is really an appreciation and understanding of relationships - a knowledge that something is so. Perhaps a knowledge of truths sends a journeyman violinist toward soloist stature. The problem public schools have is tied to their need to prove that students are learning something. So, they learn that Paris is the Capital of France. This can be tested and used to show how educated the student is. If they don't happen to do Paris, they may never know it's the capital of France. Why Paris is the capital, why it is situated where it is, should be easy for them to answer because of their knowledge of truths - which understanding should work for London, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, and so on. And if their knowledge of truths doesn't fit with (say) Berlin, they should be able to figure out why - again from their knowledge of truths. Truths allow the student to approach a situation unmet before and get a handle on it. Probably, the best way to test truths is by essay - an endangered species in the modern US public school. What teacher wants to spend his weekend perusing, correcting, and marking, 170 essays? So, it's multiple choice to the rescue - enabling the teacher to prove how much is known by the student. And it is all cleaned of by quitting time. I'm sure all FWs know that a multiple choice test can be chosen, printed, marked, and graded - without being touched by the teacher's hand. Harry Cuz wrote: Good post Karen.I think what is missing with rote education is the place that it fits in the development of critical thought and memory. Good pedagogy uses all of the tools, not just one or the other.The man who taught over your heads was a poor pedagogist but terrific on content. His problem is a well known one in the performing arts where great artists retire to teaching and teach the first year of instruction that they remember over and over again until they retire. It takes a great student to really open up these hard nuts which is a pity.It would be better if they had met and enjoyed some of the great pedagogists that I have known who understood the order of growth, the tools of teaching and the excitement of success. Cousin REH ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 ***
RE: Cry for Argentina
Sorry Harry, Argentina went into the clutches of the IMF/WB long before 5,000% inflation. It was their idea to tie the peso to the dollar. Try to at least get your chrono in order. I know we could legitimately debate causes til peron resurrects, but lets get order straight. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:49 PM To: Bruce Leier; 'Keith Hudson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cry for Argentina Bruce, old lad, they were already belly up. As I recall they had a 5,000% inflation rate. However, privatization is no answer. Competition is the way to get a tottering into shape. Mostly, the idiots privatize a monopoly - something they should have learned not to do in Economics 99. Usually, such a situation is the result of spending more than you've got. So, you must cut back - preferably on over-extended public services. Then you have to produce more before you go broke and trade is the obvious direction. Argentina was already a basket case (which is usually the case when the IMF is called in). But, the reason was a completely venal, corrupt, and incompetent, government. Come to think of it - is there any other kind? Incidentally, Ed mentions the idiocy of pegging the peso to the dollar. He is quite right. But this kind of thing has been the policy of government after government. It's a kind of Walt Disney folly - you'll recall Wishing will make it so! But, wishing doesn't stand a chance against Gresham. Harry Bruce wrote: Keith, You have out-done yourself! Argentina did exactly what the IMF told them to do: privatize, cut back public services and increase trade. That's why they went belly up! Bruce Leier ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 ***
RE: Collapsing schools
Keith, The model presupposes a profit for the bosses how ever you wish to define them. Such a pursuit undermines the goals of education. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:53 AM To: Bruce Leier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Collapsing schools At 10:32 28/06/02 -0500, you wrote: Keith, I do not think it impossible to maintain standards in public schools. Tough, but not impossible. The 1st step would be to stop trying to be business-like. The corporate model cannot work in an education setting. I hope you recognize that. Bruce Leier I don't recognise that. Unless you can put up even a minimum argument for your statement (as I did for stating why officals cannot run schools), then we'll have to agree to differ and leave it there. Keith Hudson Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ __
GLOBILIZATION
Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: 50 Years Email List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of 50 Years Is Enough Network Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:34 PM To: 50 Years Email List Subject: (50 Years) McQuaig on G8 in Alberta [The Jubilee USA Network report the author refers to -- co-authored by a 50 Years Is Enough Network staffer -- can be found at http://www.jubileeusa.org/More_Grief_Than_Relief.pdf] Toronto Star Sunday, June 30, 2002 With the world leaders packed up and gone, we can now ponder whether Africans will get fed and how the summit will affect Jean Chretien's profile. All this is stuff we can relate to. The protestors, on the other hand, seem more perplexing. To begin with, their behaviour doesn' t fit with the standard model, where everyone is simply out to maximize their own self-interest. How to explain the fact that thousands of people across the country took part in demonstrations last week to champion debt relief for Africa, without even receiving handsome retainers or improving their chances of getting into an MBA program? All this concern for others seems hard to fathom. Clearly, it would be a lot more comfortable for everyone here if these young people would just do something normal - like shop. Why can't they behave like regular folks and put their energies instead into, say, getting a fancier gas barbecue for the cottage? It's tempting perhaps to conclude that those engaging in snake-dancing without pay or taking off their clothes without the prospect of a porno film deal must be confused - about their lives and about the issues. G8 leaders and other global economy enthusiasts are hoping we'll conclude that. But it's worth noting that much of what the protestors say jibes with what an intellectual superstar like Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has to say. And, interestingly, when Stiglitz said these things in the late 90s, it didn't go down any better with the world's ruling elite. He soon found himself dumped from the prestigious position of chief economist at the World Bank. (So even if they dispense with the green hair and balaclavas, protestors shouldn't count on much of a hearing from the G8 crowd.) Stiglitz has no green hair, and when I interviewed him last year, he was in the back of a very mainstream stretch limo (on his way to meet then Finance Minister Paul Martin, who had sought his opinions.) What Stiglitz and the protestors have in common, though, is a distrust of the economic model that the G8 leaders - and the vast bureaucracies of the IMF and the World Bank that answer to them - have been imposing on the world in the past two decades, in the name of globalization. To listen to a lot of commentators last week, the problem has been that the west has selflessly squandered billions on Africans without demanding a proper accounting (perhaps Arthur Andersen could have helped out), and rendering them dependent. In this version of events, Africa is akin to the legendary beer-slugging welfare mom who can't make anything of her life because she's so hooked on hand-outs. This is a comforting thought for the west. People are dying over there despite our generosity. What's needed is a little tough love on our part. Trade not aid. But Stiglitz - who witnessed things close up, from inside the Washington power circle - presents the west's role as far less benign. It turns out that these no-strings-attached hand-outs never existed. Stiglitz notes that we routinely force developing countries to accept a rigid set of conditions aimed at weakening their governments and opening their markets for western penetration, even though all successful economies - including the U.S. and the celebrated east Asian tigers - got started with some mix of strong government and protected markets. It wasn't surprising, then, that when a group of African leaders came forward with their own aid package, known as NEPAD, they adhered to this open-market formula, knowing who they were appealing to. (No point in pitching abstinence to a room full of priests.) Stiglitz says IMF experts regularly make decisions about what's best for Third World countries while experiencing little more than the room service and pool facilties at the local first class hotel. Many IMF economists, he suggests, seem to regard themselves as shouldering Rudyard Kipling's white man's burden. The results haven't been good. After two decades of being subjected to this open-market, weak-government model, no country has worked itself out of the debt that brought it to the IMF and World Bank in the first place, according to the Washington-based Jubilee USA Network. Of course, the same two decades produced great wealth, particularly for a tiny elite in the west who now finance an industry of think tanks to convince everyone else that globalization is beneficial and, even if it isn't, it's inevitable, so get used to it. Meanwhile, at country clubs and golf courses throughout North America
RE: Collapsing schools
Keith, Don't act naive! Please explain where the profit would come, unless education is really a front for training. Oh! I remember that's why corporations are creating partnerships with schools now. Clearly, this business-like approach has lead to the dumbing-down of the schools in my part of the world. Gotta keep 'em happy at McDonalds. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 1:55 PM To: Bruce Leier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Collapsing schools Bruce, (BC) I do not think it impossible to maintain standards in public schools. Tough, but not impossible. The 1st step would be to stop trying to be business-like. The corporate model cannot work in an education setting. I hope you recognize that. (KH) I don't recognise that. Unless you can put up even a minimum argument for your statement (as I did for stating why officals cannot run schools), then we'll have to agree to differ and leave it there. At 11:49 07/07/02 -0500, you wrote: (BC) The model presupposes a profit for the bosses how ever you wish to define them. Such a pursuit undermines the goals of education. How does profit for the bosses undermine the goals of education? Don't students also profit from the process? Keith Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ __
RE: Collapsing schools -- the business model works
Brad, Ahh? Your point??? Is??? Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brad McCormick, Ed.D. Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 2:41 PM Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Collapsing schools -- the business model works Bruce Leier wrote: Keith, The model presupposes a profit for the bosses how ever you wish to define them. Such a pursuit undermines the goals of education. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:53 AM To: Bruce Leier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Collapsing schools At 10:32 28/06/02 -0500, you wrote: Keith, I do not think it impossible to maintain standards in public schools. Tough, but not impossible. The 1st step would be to stop trying to be business-like. The corporate model cannot work in an education setting. I hope you recognize that. [snip] I have only once seen a pedagogical situation in which the students were unambivalently helped to succeed, and, believe it or not, they all did -- albeit some succeeded a lot farther than others. But nobody failed. What was this pedagogical situation? It was an insurance company COBOL computer programmer training class. The students were selected by personal interviews and their scores on the Programmer Aptitude Test. None had any previous programming experience. And some of them were just housewives. The students were all paid salary from day one. THEREFORE THERE WAS AN INCENTIVE FOR THE STUDENTS TO SUCCEED, so that the company would not waste money. There was no incentive whatever to establish a bell shaped curve, etc. The course lasted 6 weeks. At the end of the course, a few were clearly going to be really good computer programmers. But every one became a successful programmer, who remained with the company for at least a year, and often much longer. You all know I am no fan of capitalism. But in the educational world, we see feudal social patterns, and positive incentives to not help students to succeed, which simply are not tolerated in normal business situations -- or at least this was the case in my experience in 1972. \brad mccormick -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) ![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
RE: The tale of the returned letter - lol
No, It was sent June 10th Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Lawrence DeBivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 6:03 PM To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The tale of the returned letter - lol LOL! Well, Bruce, I hope you find out why it was refused and let us know. Those Eid stamps are the best looking ones we have, IMHO... Could it be that you should haveused 37 cent stamp? Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Leier Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 6:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The tale of the returned letter - lol For the edification of FWers, I recently sent a letter to the secretary of agriculture (USA). It was refused. I looked at my envelope with amazement! What had I done? Still my hang-over from 16 years of Catholic schools. [ Before you tie this to my support for public education I learned from my miss-education all 4 of my children went to public schools] I seems it was my fault. I hand-wrote the addresses on the envelope (Ive never mastered the envelope addressing intricacies of my printer). The odd spelling of my last name must be a problem. The address was correct and my return obviously was ok ( it came back to me). And I used a USA postage stamp. Could it be because I used the seasons greeting 34 cent Eid stamp. My! My! A little solidarity with my Muslim cousins is just too much for our guardians. Bruce Leier
RE: power abuse (was Re: Horrific traditions)
Chris, Please get you quote correct, It is Power tends to corrupt. I have found that very often those who misquote it in the manner you just did, use it to justify corrupt actions. I say this because we all want power; such as the power to make our own way and our own decision. Power is good. Power over others tends to be bad and corrupt power is bad. I think that tautologically correct. ;) Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: power abuse (was Re: Horrific traditions) Lawry de Bivort wrote: Can anyone think of ANY example of a society that gained preeminent power and did not abuse it? I so hope that we can find a counter-example. True enough, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely -- whether it is old-fashioned empires or transnational corporations. So the trick is to avoid too big concentrations of power. That is, choose de-centralized, transparent, direct-democratic, small-is-beautiful structures. (Hmmm, sounds like Switzerland ;-) ) This should be the goal of global policies (and happens to be the paradigm of the anti-globalization[read:Americanization] movement). Chris
RE: Today's ethnic Thread
Ray, Youre right. Some days the B.S. sticks. I reread my post and I didnt call them sick only their words were sickening and they were. Ill watch my judgmental word; I hope they reciprocate. Bruce Leier P.S. Thanks to you Ive discovered Ian Hancock. I enjoy him. -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 1:39 PM To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Today's ethnic Thread Bruce, As you well know, I am in sympathy with your position; however, the question here is whether the old arguments against chauvinism coached in the terms of efficiency and the appeal of being the one true International' can seriously be answered. As in racism, there is no ultimate answer. Each generation asks the questions and solves the issues of group loyalty, competition with balance, harmony and respect to the good of all, in their own way. Some end up on the evil side even though they are at heart good people who wish not to be villains and some who consider themselves cynics and deeply damaged end up on the side of the Angels. So we each see from our own perspective and answer with the passion of our eyes, ears, feelings and intelligence these questions for the current time and generation. Every viewhas value but must be balanced and recognized in the harmony of theUniverse weall create. Naming is a tough thing. I find that names conceived in frustration and anger are rarely correct even though all energy is useful when the engine is running down. Best to you and yours REH P.S. Do you know the works of Ian Hancock? I think you would enjoy him. He is on the net. He is also a very fine fellow. We helped create our Flamenco Carmen together. - Original Message - From: Bruce Leier To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 8:42 PM Subject: Today's ethnic Thread FWs, Im sorry I deleted that entire thread and cant remember the real title of the thread started by Keith. I deleted it because it was some of the sickest I have seen here. And you call yourselves civilized. EVERYTHING ethnic is evil and the colonial powers have saved us from such ethnic barbarity. Lets talk about that civilization. Our civilized methods raise the leukemia rates of children in southern of Iraq by hundreds of percent and our civilized policies make sure that the survival rate is only 3% rather than the 95% that would be possible if there were not sanctions so we can punish some guy who dishonored our rule. Let me see it is civilized to murder 10s of thousands of children but one tribal rape results in condemning anything ethnic? God forgive the US of A and England, too. Bruce Leier
FW: [FrontlinesNewspaper] ARGENTINA: PETITION/PETICION
FWers, FYI what some workers think. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Alternative [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FrontlinesNewspaper] ARGENTINA: PETITION/PETICION URGENT. FORWARD, COPY, DISTRIBUTE AND SIGN IT We are asking organizations and individuals to sign on this petition/resolution or send their own letters of protests. Please send copies of what you sent to us at : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spanish version below / Version en espanol mas abajo PETITION FOR FREDOM AND DEMOCRACY IN ARGENTINA PETITION POR LIBERTAD Y DEMOCRACIA EN LA ARGENTINA President Eduardo Duhalde Presidential Palace Capital Federal, Argentina Hon. Congress of the Argentinean Nation Palace of Congress Capital Federal President of the Chamber of Deputies Eduardo Camano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ambassador in Washington Diego Guelar 1600 New Hampshire Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009 Tel (202) 238-6424 Fax (202) 332-3171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WHEREAS: On June 26, 2002, the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires opened fire on hundreds of unemployed, labor, political and community activists who were demonstrating peacefully for jobs and food on the Pueyrredon Bridge; and WHEREAS: At least two people were killed, over 90 wounded, and at least 17 sustained non-lethal gunshot wounds, testifying to the ferocity of the police repression; and WHEREAS: Federal police attacked demonstrators in Plaza de Mayo who were peacefully protesting the police repression at a demonstration; and WHEREAS: A general strike has been called tomorrow, June 27, in Argentina to protest the violence unleashed by the police forces of President Eduardo Duhalde; and WHEREAS: The uninterrupted protests of the Argentinean people are the consequence of the policies of the former governments of Carlos Menem and Fernando de la Rua, continued by the Duhalde administration in collusion with the interests of the IMF and the World Bank; and WHEREAS: The police have attacked at least one headquarters of the alliance Izquierda Unida, a legal organization that participated in the last four elections; and WHEREAS: The present government and Congress do not have the political legitimacy, moral authority or the political will to break the chains of the IMF, end poverty and repression, unemployment and govern for the majority of the people of Argentina; WE THE UNDERSIGNED AND THE ORGANIZTIONS WE REPRESENT DEMAND: 1. The immediate investigation of the murder of Dario Santillan and all others killed since December 19, particularly those killed on June 26, 2002 at Pueyrredon bridge 2. The freedom of all arrested during June 26s peaceful protests at Plaza de Mayo belonging to the organizations known as Bloque Piquetero, MDT Anibal Veron, PO, PC, MST, OST, and all other activists persecuted by the police 3. The indictment and prosecution of those responsible for the murder of innocent civilians during demonstrations. 4. Compensation for those wounded and/or unfairly arrested 5. Immediate universal, general and democratic elections for President, Vice-President, all seats in Congress and all public offices in the country. Initial list of endorsers: Abel Mouton, Editor Frontlines Newspaper 3311 Mission St, SF, CA 94110 (415) 452-9992 www.sf-frontlines.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Berta Hernandez, Eva Duran, Guillermo Soto, Dr. Ricardo Castrillon, Luisa Martinez, Carlos Petroni, Maria Rinaldi, Isabel Duquanin, Heberto Soto, Miguel Perez, Silvia Rouen, Victor Laplace, Simon V. Gonzalez and others for the Comité Argentino de Solidaridad 19 de Diciembre 374 Madrid Street, SF, CA 94112 (415) 584-9400 Movimiento por los Derechos de los Inmigrantes Periodico Oposicion Socialista Latinoamericana [EMAIL PROTECTED] Comision Latinoamericana de Derechos Humanos (CLDH) Left Party / Partido de Izquierda www.leftparty.org Organización de Residentes Argentinos en el Exterior (ORAE) Organización Socialista de los Trabajadores (OST) Please, add your signature and return it to us to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Comite Argentino de Solidaridad 19 de Diciembre e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will add you signatures to the hundreds of messages we are sending to representatives in the Argentinean Congress and the President of Argentina or visit our e-group for more information at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SolidaridadArgentina/ TEXTO DE LA PETITION/RESOLUCION EN ESPANOL: CONSIDERANDO que el 26 de Junio del 2002, la policia de la Provincia de Buenos Aires abrio fuego contra cientos de desocupados, activistas sindicales, militantes politicos y de la comunidad que se estaban manifestando pacificamente demandando trabajos y comida en el Puente Pueyrredon y CONSIDERANDO que al menos dos personas fueron muertas y otras 90 heridas, 17 de ellas de bala, testificando de la ferocidad de la represion policial y CONSIDERANDO: que la Policia Federal ataco a manifestantes que protestaban la represion
RE: Tony Blair rebuffed
Ray, Trying to get some dialogue going in small enough bites that this old mind can handle. Let's see private property - as in my computer. I believe in it and would defend it up to a point. Private property - as in land that I can do anything I want to in it's boundaries no matter how it effects others. No I don't believe in it. I believe the land I might own is in trust for others to - might I say it - the 7th generation. I would defend that but in a different way than I think you are implying. Can we get back to national borders? I am sickened every time I cross the Canadian-USA border (about 20 times a year), because of the waste of people's time and effort over an invisible line on some ones map. Must be that historical memory. Still do not see any value for people's lives. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:51 PM To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tony Blair rebuffed Bruce, I'm confused. Are you saying that you don't believe in private property and the need to defend it? REH - Original Message - From: Bruce Leier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:19 PM Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed Cordell, The cute little straw men you set up. You know I was talking about national borders. You have anything to say about that? Please explain what national borders have to do with accountability between people? I don't own a house, so what are you talking about. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed No borders? What about jurisdictions? What about accountability? What about zoning laws in cities? What about governments? And what about the border that marks your house? Seems like a situation where can't live with borders and can't live without them Somehow the word Balance should be introduced here. arthur cordell -Original Message- From: Bruce Leier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:54 PM To: 'Keith Hudson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed FWers, I continue to be amazed at the rationalizations that people develop to keep others out. My people have crossed borders for their entire existence and have paid dearly for the exercise. Now that I have entered my 7th decade, I get more short-tempered at the silly idea of borders. The anarchist youth of Europe have it exactly correct - NO BORDERS! Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tony Blair rebuffed Although Tony Blair is saying otherwise and pretending to be cheerful, he was severely rebuffed at the EC conference of prime ministers in Seville this week-end after he'd proposed punishing undeveloped countries who allowed some of their population to emigrate to western Europe. The EC countries have agreed to prevent further immigration but cannot yet agree on quite how they do this. Illegal immigration of approaching 1 million people a year will thus continue. For many years, EC politicians have taken the cowardly decision to raise high tariffs against agricultural produce from undeveloped countries in order to protect their own farmers, but have not yet hardened their hearts to seal EC boundaries to human movements (if only because EC farmers depend on cheap migrant labour). The EC will do so in due course. It will have to because, otherwise, far-right politicians will call for the break-up of the EC -- and, very probably succeed. Keith Hudson Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ __
RE: Tony Blair rebuffed
Cordell, On to the 2nd part - it's that attention span thing again. I guess I can't get my mind around my street, etc. It's our street, etc. in my set of values. Oh, I notice world is missing from your continuum. To re-state my position there is NO Cordell Arthur street, community, city, province or nation. I have a hunch your hunch is only partially true. Guardedly open would be how I would characterize it. I also know, as a economic analyst for several years, that objective conditions only exist from whatever perspective you view them from. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it is not a straw man. My view of my street, community, city, province and nation are part of a long continuum. And, Bruce, even if you rent your dwelling I have a hunch that you don't have an open door policy. Of course, this might also just be one of those value issues: Some people want open borders some people want closed borders for reasons that have to do with how they perceive themselves and their values. All of this having little to do with objective condtions in the economomy or society. Mainly a projection of the their preferred self image. arthur cordell -Original Message- From: Bruce Leier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:19 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed Cordell, The cute little straw men you set up. You know I was talking about national borders. You have anything to say about that? Please explain what national borders have to do with accountability between people? I don't own a house, so what are you talking about. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed No borders? What about jurisdictions? What about accountability? What about zoning laws in cities? What about governments? And what about the border that marks your house? Seems like a situation where can't live with borders and can't live without them Somehow the word Balance should be introduced here. arthur cordell -Original Message- From: Bruce Leier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:54 PM To: 'Keith Hudson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed FWers, I continue to be amazed at the rationalizations that people develop to keep others out. My people have crossed borders for their entire existence and have paid dearly for the exercise. Now that I have entered my 7th decade, I get more short-tempered at the silly idea of borders. The anarchist youth of Europe have it exactly correct - NO BORDERS! Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tony Blair rebuffed Although Tony Blair is saying otherwise and pretending to be cheerful, he was severely rebuffed at the EC conference of prime ministers in Seville this week-end after he'd proposed punishing undeveloped countries who allowed some of their population to emigrate to western Europe. The EC countries have agreed to prevent further immigration but cannot yet agree on quite how they do this. Illegal immigration of approaching 1 million people a year will thus continue. For many years, EC politicians have taken the cowardly decision to raise high tariffs against agricultural produce from undeveloped countries in order to protect their own farmers, but have not yet hardened their hearts to seal EC boundaries to human movements (if only because EC farmers depend on cheap migrant labour). The EC will do so in due course. It will have to because, otherwise, far-right politicians will call for the break-up of the EC -- and, very probably succeed. Keith Hudson Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ __
A return to the attempt to come up with simple assumptions
are analyzing. There is certainly something worth keeping in standard microeconomics, but we should not be deluded by the fancier ways of articulating what remains a simple model, a model so simple that it cannot capture the complexity of interaction in economies. Superior analysis requires recognition of this greater complexity. SUGGESTED CITATION: Anne Mayhew, Superior Analysis Requires Recognition of Complexity, post-autistic economics review, issue no. 14, June 21, 2002, article 7. http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/review/issue14.htm Bruce Leier
RE: Tony Blair rebuffed
Thanks for some thoughtful response at last. Sigh Yes, people want (or have come to expect) control over the conditions of their workplace. But we give them little or none. Because corporations are people they have all the rights and the real people have none. There can (should, would [in a PARECOM system) be differing level of say over what others do based on what impact it has on the individual. With immigration, I have the perspective of the other and will not participate in doing to someone else what was done to mine. The problem of governance is a problem of lack of imagination. Again look at PARECOM. I understand the voting objection and have 2 observations. I have reports that Brazil has an alternative - those residing there get to vote. Pease Corps volunteers vote in Brazilian elections. A much more civilized approach then US. It does get closer to the principle of those affected have a say. I also remember a columnist (there goes the age thing again - no memory of whom or where) talking about how the US is so powerful and affects all people's of the world that all ought to be able to vote for US President. I like that idea. Well of to walk my dogs. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed People who want control over the conditions of their workplace, their community, their nation often look to immigration laws as a problem. Just because they want to keep people out, and/or want to maintain some sort of orderly flow into the nation doesn't make them bad guys or right wingers. Without national borders it seems almost impossible to imagine the process of governance. National capitals contain national legislatures that make laws affecting the nation. Take away the borders and who votes and under what conditions? I think it is not a straw man. My view of my street, community, city, province and nation are part of a long continuum. And, Bruce, even if you rent your dwelling I have a hunch that you don't have an open door policy. Of course, this might also just be one of those value issues: Some people want open borders some people want closed borders for reasons that have to do with how they perceive themselves and their values. All of this having little to do with objective condtions in the economomy or society. Mainly a projection of the their preferred self image. arthur cordell -Original Message- From: Bruce Leier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:19 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed Cordell, The cute little straw men you set up. You know I was talking about national borders. You have anything to say about that? Please explain what national borders have to do with accountability between people? I don't own a house, so what are you talking about. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed No borders? What about jurisdictions? What about accountability? What about zoning laws in cities? What about governments? And what about the border that marks your house? Seems like a situation where can't live with borders and can't live without them Somehow the word Balance should be introduced here. arthur cordell -Original Message- From: Bruce Leier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:54 PM To: 'Keith Hudson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed FWers, I continue to be amazed at the rationalizations that people develop to keep others out. My people have crossed borders for their entire existence and have paid dearly for the exercise. Now that I have entered my 7th decade, I get more short-tempered at the silly idea of borders. The anarchist youth of Europe have it exactly correct - NO BORDERS! Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tony Blair rebuffed Although Tony Blair is saying otherwise and pretending to be cheerful, he was severely rebuffed at the EC conference of prime ministers in Seville this week-end after he'd proposed punishing undeveloped countries who allowed some of their population to emigrate to western Europe. The EC countries have agreed to prevent further immigration but cannot yet agree on quite how they do this. Illegal immigration of approaching 1 million people a year will thus continue. For many years, EC politicians
FW: Monbiot / White Lies / Jun 26
InTEResting viewpoint Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: ZNet Commentaries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Monbiot / White Lies / Jun 26 Sustainers PLEASE note: -- Sustainers can change your email address or cc data or temporarily turn off mail delivery via: https://www.zmag.org/sustainers/members -- If you pass this comment along to others -- periodically but not repeatedly -- please explain that Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org -- Sustainer Forums Login: https://www.zmag.org/sustainers/forums Today's commentary: http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-06/26monbiot.cfm == ZNet Commentary White Lies June 26, 2002 By George Monbiot In the Canadian fastness of Kananaskis this week, the messianic cult of empire will solemnly worship itself. The leaders of the G8 nations will declare that they have come to deliver the world from evil. They will announce that they are sacrificing themselves for the good of lesser nations. They will propose solutions from on high, without acknowledging any responsibility for the problems. It is traditional, when empire celebrates, that its vassal states come to pay tribute and beg for deliverance. This time, the African leaders who will be admitted to the summit on Thursday are prepared to suffer the final humiliation, by blaming themselves for the disasters visited upon them by the G8. Africa, according to the Canadian government, will remain a central focus of the Kananaskis Summit. The discussions will revolve around a plan called the New Partnership For Africa's Development, or Nepad, drafted by the African leaders and enthusiastically endorsed by the G8. The enthusiasm is not entirely surprising, as Nepad places nearly all the blame for Africa's problems and nearly all the responsibility for sorting them out on Africa itself. In the hope that it might win them a few crumbs of aid and extra debt relief, the continent's leaders appear to have told the rich world everything it wants to hear. Nepad accepts that colonialism, the Cold War, and the workings of the international economic system have contributed to Africa's problems, but the primary responsibility rests with corruption and economic mismanagement at home. Few would deny that these have played a significant role, but nowhere in the document on which the plan is based is there any mention of the far more consequential corruption and mismanagement by the nations to whom they are appealing. Africa's underlying problem, as the continent's leaders acknowledge, is debt. Nepad implicitly accepts the rich world's explanation for this debt: that previous African leaders have frittered away their economic independence through poor planning and personal graft. Nowhere is any context given: that Africa's deficit is merely one component of a vast and growing global debt, affecting consumers and nations in the rich world as well as nations in the poor world. Nowhere is any mention made of the fractional reserve banking system which causes it, and which arose as a consequence of corruption and mismanagement in western nations. The system ensures that the only way debts can be discharged is through the issue of more debt. This problem, as poor nations know but dare not acknowledge, is compounded by the policing system developed by the rich world in 1944. Rather than the self-correcting mechanism proposed by John Maynard Keynes, which forced creditors as well as debtors to discharge the debt, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund were introduced as a means of persuading only the debtor nations to act, in the certain knowledge that this couldn't possibly work. This system granted the rich world complete economic control over the poor world. The power nations swing within the IMF is a function of their gross domestic product: the richer they are, the more votes they can cast. The World Bank is run entirely by donor states. These two bodies, in other words, respond only to the nations in which they do not operate. The consequences for national democracy are devastating. African voters can demand a change of government, but they cannot demand a change of policy. All the important decisions affecting the continent are made in Washington, and they always boil down to the neoliberal demolition of the state's capacity to care for its people. So when the African leaders announce that Africa undertakes to respect the global standards of democracy, they are accepting a burden they cannot lift. Democracy in Africa is meaningless until its leaders are prepared to challenge the external control of their economies. But far from denouncing the authors of their misfortunes, they appear only to embrace them. Structural adjustment, the IMF policy which has forced countries to repay their debts instead
RE: IMF not my baby (was RE: Cry for Argentina
Keith why do you keep ducking the facts 1) the IMF recommended privatization and cutting back on social services 2) you recommended privatization and cutting back on social services 3) Argentina followed those recommendations 4) Argentina went into the toilet you accurately described. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:51 AM To: Bruce Leier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IMF not my baby (was RE: Cry for Argentina At 21:19 26/06/02 -0500, you wrote: Let's get this straight Keith. You don't like the IMF. They have no legitimacy. You recommend the same actions the IMF demanded from Argentina. I have no idea what the IMF is demanding (?) from Argentina at the present time. But you don't support their remedies. I have no idea what the IMF is demanding (?) from Argentina at the present time. You just agree with them? I have no idea what the IMF is demanding (?) from Argentina at the present time. I don't get what you are saying. I've already written that, probably, whatever Argentina's own economists say would be the best strategy for their country would probably be the best. But it's unlikely that their advice will be followed because Argentina still suffers from deep cultural characteristics (like widespread official corruption at many levels, provincial warlordism, repeatedly welching on its debts in the past 150 years, etc) which militate against it becoming a modern state anytime soon. Indeed, Argentina has more resemblances to Afghanistan than it has to the countries from which it is asking for aid and is seeking to emulate. In terms of civic responsibility and maturity, it hasn't reached the 20th century yet, never mind the 21st. I hope you've got it now. Keith Hudson -- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ __
RE: Tony Blair rebuffed
Bless then every one where is the irony? Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed At this very time, ironically, in Ottawa there is a g-8 protest in the streets calling for open borders. The signs say no one is illegal. Lots of police, lots of noise, lots of protesters. arthur -Original Message- From: Bruce Leier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:01 PM To: 'Ray Evans Harrell'; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed Ray, Trying to get some dialogue going in small enough bites that this old mind can handle. Let's see private property - as in my computer. I believe in it and would defend it up to a point. Private property - as in land that I can do anything I want to in it's boundaries no matter how it effects others. No I don't believe in it. I believe the land I might own is in trust for others to - might I say it - the 7th generation. I would defend that but in a different way than I think you are implying. Can we get back to national borders? I am sickened every time I cross the Canadian-USA border (about 20 times a year), because of the waste of people's time and effort over an invisible line on some ones map. Must be that historical memory. Still do not see any value for people's lives. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:51 PM To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tony Blair rebuffed Bruce, I'm confused. Are you saying that you don't believe in private property and the need to defend it? REH - Original Message - From: Bruce Leier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:19 PM Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed Cordell, The cute little straw men you set up. You know I was talking about national borders. You have anything to say about that? Please explain what national borders have to do with accountability between people? I don't own a house, so what are you talking about. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed No borders? What about jurisdictions? What about accountability? What about zoning laws in cities? What about governments? And what about the border that marks your house? Seems like a situation where can't live with borders and can't live without them Somehow the word Balance should be introduced here. arthur cordell -Original Message- From: Bruce Leier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:54 PM To: 'Keith Hudson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed FWers, I continue to be amazed at the rationalizations that people develop to keep others out. My people have crossed borders for their entire existence and have paid dearly for the exercise. Now that I have entered my 7th decade, I get more short-tempered at the silly idea of borders. The anarchist youth of Europe have it exactly correct - NO BORDERS! Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tony Blair rebuffed Although Tony Blair is saying otherwise and pretending to be cheerful, he was severely rebuffed at the EC conference of prime ministers in Seville this week-end after he'd proposed punishing undeveloped countries who allowed some of their population to emigrate to western Europe. The EC countries have agreed to prevent further immigration but cannot yet agree on quite how they do this. Illegal immigration of approaching 1 million people a year will thus continue. For many years, EC politicians have taken the cowardly decision to raise high tariffs against agricultural produce from undeveloped countries in order to protect their own farmers, but have not yet hardened their hearts to seal EC boundaries to human movements (if only because EC farmers depend on cheap migrant labour). The EC will do so in due course. It will have to because, otherwise, far-right politicians will call for the break-up of the EC -- and, very
RE: Tony Blair rebuffed
It would be messy wouldnt it? Messier than it is now? I doubt it! The disputes would sure be in the open though. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tony Blair rebuffed Bruce hates national borders. Well, if 'your' tribe/society believes in subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, infanticide, slavery in any form, virtually unlimited rights to pollute, 12 children to be 'godly' (Mormons), or any of countless cultural values that 'my' society/tribe doesn't agree with, then open borders between our societies can prove highly volatile. A society choosing to have low density and fertility will soon disappear if it invites/permits unlimited immigration. Cultural heritage is an anthropogenic value; and I challenge anyone to demonstrate sources of value other than anthropogenic choice combined with experience/environment and 'hard wiring'. Thus, no other values/rights necessarily take precedence over cultural heritage and societal choices. So called 'human rights' are anthropogenic, as are human responsibilities. Since it is unlikely that all humans will agree on all these, one world doesn't seem to be in the cards at this stage of evolution, globalisation and development. Perhaps in an unforseen future...After crash??... Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
RE: Tony Blair rebuffed
Ray, Ray, I couldn't say what my reaction would be if I was in NYC. I too have a drama playing in my head. It says that without the artificially imposed boundaries there would have been no reason for the 9/11/01 atrocity. Different ideals mean different stories? Remind me later; I'll probably have some more thoughts. Thanks for the stimulus. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 3:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tony Blair rebuffed Those of us who were saved from the terrorist incident at the New Year have mixed feelings about this to be sure. If there had been no border there would no longer have been a Times Square with the one million souls in the square and probably me just thirty blocks north as well.Personally that would have kicked my family back to the law of blood of the Cherokee nation which would have meant that they would have gone hunting for the family or clan of the killers and would have taken revenge for our deaths. The Law of Blood says that the clan is responsible for the actions of its members.If a death is caused then they may take any member of the offending family who happens to be convenient. Man, woman or child. Deaths are never forgiven although they may be occasionally bought out for some outrageous sum if the dead person was not beloved of his family. So should we return to the ancient law or should we use these new fangled things like borders for protection? Bruce, how would your family have dealt with such things? Sorry, about the grisly nature of this post but I'm an opera director and we always think about the practicalities of these ideals and how they work or if they work at all. REH Ray Evans Harrell - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 3:41 PM Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed At this very time, ironically, in Ottawa there is a g-8 protest in the streets calling for open borders. The signs say no one is illegal. Lots of police, lots of noise, lots of protesters. arthur -Original Message- From: Bruce Leier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:01 PM To: 'Ray Evans Harrell'; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed Ray, Trying to get some dialogue going in small enough bites that this old mind can handle. Let's see private property - as in my computer. I believe in it and would defend it up to a point. Private property - as in land that I can do anything I want to in it's boundaries no matter how it effects others. No I don't believe in it. I believe the land I might own is in trust for others to - might I say it - the 7th generation. I would defend that but in a different way than I think you are implying. Can we get back to national borders? I am sickened every time I cross the Canadian-USA border (about 20 times a year), because of the waste of people's time and effort over an invisible line on some ones map. Must be that historical memory. Still do not see any value for people's lives. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:51 PM To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tony Blair rebuffed Bruce, I'm confused. Are you saying that you don't believe in private property and the need to defend it? REH - Original Message - From: Bruce Leier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:19 PM Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed Cordell, The cute little straw men you set up. You know I was talking about national borders. You have anything to say about that? Please explain what national borders have to do with accountability between people? I don't own a house, so what are you talking about. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed No borders? What about jurisdictions? What about accountability? What about zoning laws in cities? What about governments? And what about the border that marks your house? Seems like a situation where can't live with borders and can't live without them Somehow the word Balance should be introduced here. arthur cordell -Original Message- From
RE: Tony Blair rebuffed
Cordell, The cute little straw men you set up. You know I was talking about national borders. You have anything to say about that? Please explain what national borders have to do with accountability between people? I don't own a house, so what are you talking about. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed No borders? What about jurisdictions? What about accountability? What about zoning laws in cities? What about governments? And what about the border that marks your house? Seems like a situation where can't live with borders and can't live without them Somehow the word Balance should be introduced here. arthur cordell -Original Message- From: Bruce Leier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:54 PM To: 'Keith Hudson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tony Blair rebuffed FWers, I continue to be amazed at the rationalizations that people develop to keep others out. My people have crossed borders for their entire existence and have paid dearly for the exercise. Now that I have entered my 7th decade, I get more short-tempered at the silly idea of borders. The anarchist youth of Europe have it exactly correct - NO BORDERS! Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tony Blair rebuffed Although Tony Blair is saying otherwise and pretending to be cheerful, he was severely rebuffed at the EC conference of prime ministers in Seville this week-end after he'd proposed punishing undeveloped countries who allowed some of their population to emigrate to western Europe. The EC countries have agreed to prevent further immigration but cannot yet agree on quite how they do this. Illegal immigration of approaching 1 million people a year will thus continue. For many years, EC politicians have taken the cowardly decision to raise high tariffs against agricultural produce from undeveloped countries in order to protect their own farmers, but have not yet hardened their hearts to seal EC boundaries to human movements (if only because EC farmers depend on cheap migrant labour). The EC will do so in due course. It will have to because, otherwise, far-right politicians will call for the break-up of the EC -- and, very probably succeed. Keith Hudson Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ __
RE: IMF not my baby (was RE: Cry for Argentina
Let's get this straight Keith. You don't like the IMF. They have no legitimacy. You recommend the same actions the IMF demanded from Argentina. But you don't support their remedies. You just agree with them? I don't get what you are saying. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:28 AM To: Bruce Leier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IMF not my baby (was RE: Cry for Argentina Bruce, At 17:54 25/06/02 -0500, you wrote: Keith, You have out-done yourself! Argentina did exactly what the IMF told them to do: privatize, cut back public services and increase trade. That's why they went belly up! Bruce Leier I don't know why I am supposed to be in favour of the IMF or to endorse their remedies. The IMF was instituted as a back-up to those countries which got into difficulty when trading according to the fixed (that is, artificial) exchange rates of Bretton Woods. Since fixed rates vapourised in the 70s, the IMF has no constitutional basis and has been acting ultra vires ever since. The fact that I am generally in favour of minimising public spending and maximising free trade doesn't give me or anybody else the ability to give sensible advice to a country, such as Argentina, which has been unfortunate enough to have had corrupt governments for over a century. Nobody can help Argentina except itself. It has more than a few able economists who could draw up a sensible strategy if they were asked to by its politicians or electorate. Until then, why should any government or bank pour yet more money (partly your money, too, if coming from the IMF) down a black hole -- as they have been doing ever since Argentina's first big international loan (and consequent first default) in the 1850s? Keith Hudson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cry for Argentina Terribly sad report on BBC Radio 4 this morning. Argentina, which was the fourth most prosperous country in the world and the bread basket of Europe only a century ago, is now sinking to levels associated with the most impoverished countries in the world, such as Bangladesh and Nepal. Millions of people are now surviving only by begging, making compost or by sorting and re-selling household rubbish thrown out by the minority of those who still have jobs. What happened in the course of the last century is that Argentina's dictators learned how to make themselves popular in difficult times by giving out large welfare benefits to the public instead of allowing their economy to operate in the normal way. In order to do this, the politicians had to borrow repeatedly from banks and other governments -- though reneging on the loans when due. The result today is that no government will lend Argentina's politicians any more money (that is, via the IMF -- which doesn't have money of its own) unless there's evidence that they will follow normal economic rules, among which would be a sincere intention to repay. Some nine or ten months ago, we had a poignant message on FW from Carmen, a young Argentinian economist who was desperate to know what she and her young colleagues could do. My advice at the time was that she would have no chance of influencing events because an inappropriate welfare culture was still too deeply embedded in the older generation and that this would firstly have to die out over the next twenty or thirty years before common sense could prevail. I suggested that she would be well advised to emigrate. We haven't heard from her since then and I hope she's all right. Keith Hudson Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ __
RE: myth that free trade is best for all
Cordell, Looks like the other side of the anti-immigrant coin. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: myth that free trade is best for all Subject: Majordomo file: list 'guardian-weekly' file 'gw-features/2002.6.30/200206271403' -- Finance / History debunks myth that free trade is best for all / Ha-Joon Chang History debunks myth that free trade is best for all Debate Ha-Joon Chang Ha-Joon Chang You are visiting a developing country as a policy analyst. It has the highest average tariff rate in the world. Most of the population cannot vote, and vote-buying and electoral fraud are widespread. The country has never recruited a single civil servant through an open process. Its public finances are precarious, with loan defaults that worry investors. It has no competition law, has abolished its shambolic bankruptcy law, and does not acknowledge foreigners' copyrights. In short, it is doing everything against the advice of the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the international investment community. Sounds like a recipe for development disaster? But no. The country is the United States - only that the time is around 1880, when its income level was similar to that of Morocco and Indonesia today. Despite wrong policies and sub-standard institutions, it was then one of the fastest-growing - and rapidly becoming one of the richest - countries in the world. Especially in relation to trade policy. Many top economists, including Adam Smith, had been telling Americans for over a century that they should not protect their industries - exactly what today's development orthodoxy tells developing countries. But the Americans knew exactly what the game was. Many knew all too clearly that Britain, which was preaching free trade to their country, became rich on the basis of protectionism and subsidies. Ulysses Grant, the civil war hero who was president between 1868 and 1876, remarked that within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade. How prescient - except that his country did rather better than his prediction. The fact is that rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and institutions they now recommend to developing countries. Virtually all of them used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Once they became rich, these countries started demanding that the poorer countries practise free trade and introduce advanced institutions - if necessary through colonialism and unequal treaties. Friedrich List, the leading German economist of the mid-19th century, argued that in this way the more developed countries wanted to kick away the ladder with which they climbed to the top and so deny poorer countries the chance to develop. In the past two decades developed countries have exerted enormous pressures on developing countries to adopt free trade, deregulate their economies, open their capital markets, and adopt best-practice institutions such as strong patent laws. During this period, a marked slowdown has occurred in the growth of the developing countries. How do we address this failure? First, the conditions attached to bilateral and multilateral financial assistance to developing countries should be radically changed. It should be accepted that the orthodox recipe is not working, and also that there can be no best-practice policies that everyone should use. Second, the WTO rules should be rewritten so that the developing countries can more actively use tariffs and subsidies for development. Third, improvements in institutions should be encouraged, but this should not be equated with imposing a fixed set of Anglo-American institutions on all countries, nor should it be attempted in haste, as institutional development is a lengthy and costly process. By being allowed to adopt policies and institutions that are more suitable to their conditions, the developing countries will be able to develop faster. This will also benefit the developed countries in the long run, as it will increase their trade and investment opportunities. That the developed countries cannot see this is the tragedy of our time. Ha-Joon Chang teaches at the University of Cambridge The Guardian Weekly 27-6-2002, page 14
RE: HIGH ANXIETY IN THE MARKETPLACE
Whoa Karen, Too much at one time! Today, Ill only tackle one point. You quoted: Bruce Leier Record 143 overwork-related cases in2001 At least they keep such statistics. I believe that the US would have a rate at least 10 times Japans.
RE: LABOR-L Digest - 30 May 2002 to 31 May 2002 (#2002-143)
We struggle on so many fronts. And so much of it is unreported by the -- dare I say it? -- corporate media. As I turn 60, I am so inspired by these young adults. They are wise beyond their years. My only dream for them is that they never forget what the fight for today. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of S. Lerner Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: LABOR-L Digest - 30 May 2002 to 31 May 2002 (#2002-143) NEW Book on Student anti-sweatshop organizing!! to order go to: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Sweatshops.html Students Against Sweatshops By Liza Featherstone and United Students Against Sweatshops Verso (available now) This book tells an inspiring story of how students are making history today. Their battle against sweatshops reveals how the globalization of capital is creating a globalization of conscience. --Tom Hayden, Students for a Democratic Society cofounder/former California state senator As vividly as any documentary film, Students Against Sweatshops captures the gusto and political savvy of a student movement that has made its impact in every corner of the global economy. Nor does this indispensable book pull any punches; its bold commentary will hit home where it needs to be heard. -- Andrew Ross, editor, No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade and the Rights of Garment Workers Campus activism lives! This inspiring and lucid account of the work of United Students against Sweatshops proves it. Blending commitment and analysis, Featherstone tells us why USAS is about much more than caps and t-shirts -- it's about worker's rights, women's rights, challenging the corporatization of the university, and establishing a fair world order. -- Katha Pollitt, Nation magazine columnist Everybody wants to have a living wage. Everybody wants to be able to take care of themselves and their family. Everybody wants to retire and feel good, enjoy life. Breathe. Live. Eat. Sheri Davis, Ohio State University United Students Against Sweatshops heads a wave of anti-sweatshop organizing that has reached over two hundred American campuses in the past four years. From New England to New Mexico, at colleges and universities public and private, large and small, students have chained themselves to administrators' desks, fasted for days and disrupted football games, making one demand: clothing bearing school logos must be produced under healthy, safe and fair working conditions. Their campaigns have terrified multinational companies like Nike, whose profits depend on young consumers. They have also brought the global economic justice movement to the corporate campus, and provided a model for transnational student/worker solidarity. Student agitation has also, in a short time, led to some startlingly concrete improvements in overseas workers' conditions. This lively book combines sharp analysis from a seasoned journalist with narratives from both sweatshop workers and student activists, creatively blurring distinctions between author and subject. Students Against Sweatshops provides an overview of a new campus radicalism, as well as a tool for the realization of its goals. Here are the inspiring voices of our democracy -- young people daring to question authority and confront power. These are the Thomas Paines, Sojourner Truths, Fredrick Douglasses, and Mother Joneses of our times. America needs them more than ever. -- Jim Hightower, radio commentator Liza Featherstone is a New York City journalist who has written extensively about student, youth and labor organizing. A frequent contributor to The Nation, Newsday and The Washington Post, she is now writing a book about Wal-Mart workers.
RE: FW Bored to death? (fwd)
The title is sure misleading! It's the stress stupid! Just some personal experience. And by the way, I personally never stood still for boredom. My 35 years of employment meant at least 20 different jobs. Any boredom, I left. I once had a job that I really loved. I was organizing a state-wide network around healthcare issues. I was number 2 in the organization. There was discussion about accepting some funds and some staff to run a program. I became convinced the program did not fit the mission of the organization and was just chasing money (Aside: An not-for-profit acting business-like). Not only did the powers-that-be decide to do it - I was made to supervise the program. Talk about stress! The 2 years ended with the program gone - thank goodness - and me with diabetes and high blood pressure. I am convinced that 1 more year and I would have had a heart attack. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of S. Lerner Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW Bored to death? (fwd) Date:Sat, 1 Jun 2002 13:51:44 -0700 From:radtimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Deadly Boring Jobs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/531/2 31 May 2002 Deadly Boring Jobs BEN SHOUSE Dilberts of the world take note: Workers who have little control over how they do their jobs have an increased risk of death from any cause, according to new results from a long-term study. The finding suggests that giving employees more freedom could benefit their health. Quit if you can. Jobs that offer little control may increase mortality. In the 1980s, the ongoing Whitehall Study of British civil servants suggested that men in low-ranking jobs had double the risk of mortality compared to their higher-ranking counterparts, even after adjusting for factors such as age, blood pressure, and smoking. Researchers hypothesized that this was due to higher job stress, lack of social support, or what they called lower job control--a measure of the degree of latitude in organizing one's work. To investigate the impact of job control in a broader cross-section of society, Ben Amick, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Houston, and colleagues used data from a survey study of American income patterns begun in 1968. From this sample, they assigned some 25,000 people a job control score (from 1 to 4) based on their past job titles. A score of 1 indicates the worker held only low-control jobs, such as assembly line worker, tollbooth collector, or nurse's aide. High-level management jobs scored a 4. After adjusting for gender, race, income, and other factors, workers in the lowest category had a 43% higher risk of death during the time they were working or the 10 years following retirement than workers in the highest category; the second-lowest category carried a 33% increased risk, the researchers report in the May/June issue of Psychosomatic Medicine. Stressful or demanding work, meanwhile, had no significant impact on mortality. Amick points out that the results don't prove that unfulfilling work causes poor health. Sickly workers might take more passive jobs, for instance, although the researchers tried to account for this using workers' responses to questions about their health histories. Michael Marmot, lead researcher on the Whitehall study and an epidemiologist at University College London, calls the increased risk considerable, and suggests researchers look at ways to create work environments that free workers from mindless labor, especially in offices and service industries.
Under the nuclear shadow
Ms. Roy's novel God of Small Things is a powerful statement of the power of stupid rules. This column puts our discussions in a new perspective. Arundhati Roy, looks at the conflict over Kashmir from her home in New Delhi Sunday June 2, 2002 The Observer http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,726274,00.html Bruce Leier
RE: Nickel and Dimed
Ed, Thanks for reminding me of this book. Just a few commends. [snip] One is that the wealth and quality of life of the middle and upper classes depends, to a considerable degree, on the deprivation of the poor. If the poor were paid a liveable wage, the higher classes would see a substantial reduction in their standard of living. In effect, the income of the latter includes a transfer from the poor. So true! And the wealthy know it. That is why they fight so hard to maximize the transfers. And it is explained by the rules of economics. The second point is that the poor will not fight for higher wages. There are many reasons for this, but in general it is because they have been socially conditioned to accept the minimum. It is where they see themselves belonging. They are kept there by imnumberable little messages, received day by day, that remind them that they are unworthy of more than the minimum. Those that have more than they do deserve it, they don't. While not many of the poor see this listserv, we do see a lot of those messages here. Those messages are nonsense, of course. [snip] Bruce Leier
RE: False dichotomy (was Re: If you don't advertise, you don't exist.
I'm behind! But, Keith; Ray's comments were no diatribe. Just some mildly stated facts. A diatribe, like beauty, must be in the eye of the beholder. I think Ray is much too easy on this economic system called capitalism. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 2:08 AM To: Ray Evans Harrell Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: False dichotomy (was Re: If you don't advertise, you don't exist. Hi Ray, In your diatribe against capitalism (16:25 11/05/02 -0400), you wrote: REH As Capitalism becomes less able to control, i.e. have a limited monopoly of an idea in order to make money from the product, it becomes impotent in stimulating the continuation of those ideas for future development. Exactly! And that's why copyright and patent law are devices that actually militate against true creativity (and also hold back development in poor countries). But capitalism (as frequently pejoratorised as greed) has never been the prime cause. It just happens to be a necessary part of the process of economic development. I don't know that I'll ever be able to persuade you to look at capitalism objectively. But let me try again by recommending Johan Norberg's In Defence of Global Capitalism (Timbro, 2001). Interestingly, this book comes from the most state-corporate country of all -- Sweden. It's likely that this book could not have been published at all in Sweden prior to the collapse of Soviet Communism in 1989. As I've written before, I think that the dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism is a false one. There are desirable (and necessary) features in both of them, but also very undesirable ones -- as tried so far in the last century. We need a political philosophy that can combine the two and give us a glimpse of a possible set of institutions that can allow both to co-exist. The mixed economy of western countries is slowly groping towards such a condition but, Oh! so very slowly. There are so many greedy interest groups on both sides that resist progress. Keith __ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Quality Care Sacrificed For Profit
Fwers, I hope we can discuss this. http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/current.asp#25920 Bruce Leier
Global Warming redux
Fascinating article. Comments? http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/170402/dlnat04.asp Bruce Leier
RE: Schools/education
Selma, Again using the anecdotal evidence of my 4 young ones, none of them graduated early. But the individualized plans allowed for creative use of time in school. My oldest, girl, had a tremendous growth spurt during the 9th grade. The individual plan allowed her to in effect drop-out for a year to deal with her hormones, etc. She now is an expeditor in the printing business. My next, a boy, spent almost all of his high school years taking college courses, both under grad and graduate courses. He then dropped into the art world as a puppeteer [incidentally, appearing with the New York City Opera Company, in Where The Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendek]. He now is a nurse practioner. The 2 younger made more traditional progress and both are in education. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Selma Singer Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:08 AM To: Keith Hudson Cc: liz; JOHN AND MARIA GRIMANIS; Varda Ullman Novick; Irenestuber; nick; liz2; jennifer; trish; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Schools/education I am particularly interested in the response some of you may have to the idea that each child should have a program individually tailored to her/his needs and that some children will graduate at 14 and others at 21. Selma - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Selma Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: liz [EMAIL PROTECTED]; JOHN AND MARIA GRIMANIS [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Varda Ullman Novick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Irenestuber [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; liz2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]; jennifer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; trish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:43 AM Subject: Re: Schools/education Hi Selma, At 13:24 15/04/02 -0400, you wrote: (SS) I tried to email this article directly from the Globe but, for some reason, it refused to cooperate to print. I do hope you can get it and would love to hear what you think. Selma A superb article and most encouraging. I show it below for those interested. The two strong points I took from it were: (a) that Richard DeLorenzo had a great degree of autonomy; (b) he consulted with his customers rather than the authorities or experts (he thinks this was the strongest factor of success). This is what we badly need -- whether we have state supported education or private. We need diversity. We need schools to respond to their local needs. We need freedom for those who have a real vocation to teach. My main complaint against state education in England is that it has been centrally directed, and very heavily, too. It is failing badly. We have variations in standards far greater than if we gave freedom to schools. Slowly, painfully, we are learning the lesson of Richard DeLorenzo. Keith Hudson CHUGACH'S MODEL OF SCHOOL SUCCESS David S. Broder The Chugach School District is one of the strangest in America. Encompassing 22,000 square miles of remote Alaskan wilderness, ranging from the islands of Prince William Sound to isolated ''bush'' villages, it has only 214 students and barely two dozen teachers on its staff. Unemployment in the area tops 50 percent, and three-fourths of the people, many of them Aleuts, are below the poverty line. Two of the school board members live what are tactfully called ''subsistence lifestyles.'' Another is an 81-year-old retired woman bartender. Yet in seven years, this school district, facing challenges of almost unimaginable scope and complexity, has transformed itself into a national model of education reform whose methods are being copied not only across Alaska, but now in the Seattle public schools as well. Last week, the Chugach superintendent, Richard DeLorenzo, stood before a ballroom full of high-powered executives, explaining how little Chugach had won the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, an honor that in the past has gone to companies such as Cadillac and Ritz-Carlton as a signal of their success in providing customer satisfaction. The rigorous competition- named for the late commerce secretary in the Reagan administration- has been around for 14 years, but this is the first time any winners have been found in the education world. In addition to Chugach, the five honorees this year included the Pearl River School District, an affluent area in Rockland County, north of New York City, and the University of Wisconsin-Stout in Menomonie. All three represent remarkably successful collaborations among local communities, educators, and businesses in setting common goals and relentlessly measuring where they stand in achieving them. But it is the Chugach story that carries the strongest message to districts that take seriously President Bush's challenge to ''leave no child behind.'' In 1994, when DeLorenzo arrived, the average Chugach student was 3 three years behind grade level in reading and lagging badly in other areas as well. Now these students
Capitalism at its best
This seems to be a typical capitalist modus operendus, eh? DAN GILLMOR ON TECHNOLOGY E-mail Dan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Paying fines too lenient for analysts who lied When we look back on the crazy era of the Internet bubble, one of the pivot points may be the day Henry Blodget threatened to tell the whole truth. Blodget was head of the Internet research group at Merrill Lynch, the giant investment bank and brokerage house. His group's glowing recommendations of various stocks helped propel them to dizzy heights, and Merrill Lynch maintained positive recommendations on these companies even after the share prices dove. What at least some investors didn't know, according to a devastating affidavit from New York State authorities, was that Blodget and his cronies served two masters. One of them, the investment banking side of Merrill Lynch, was reaping tens of millions in fees from the tech companies the Merrill ``research'' arm found so attractive. It's been all-too-common knowledge that such conflicts of interest raged on Wall Street and its Silicon Valley outposts during the tech boom of the 1990s. Now, thanks to a public official in New York state, we're finding out just how rampant the dishonesty was. The official is Eliot Spitzer, the state's attorney general, who is doing what federal officials have refused to do. He's holding people accountable for their actions in the rip-offs that enriched a few and cost sucker investors trillions of dollars. Spitzer is wielding a powerful weapon, a state law called the Martin Act. It deals with securities markets, and has tough provisions about fraud and deception. The stock analysts and their activities have proved to be noteworthy fodder. Merrill Lynch denies it all, as you'd expect. Last week, after Spitzer's office released its initial findings, based on under-oath interviews and thousands of documents, the company insisted that it and its employees had done nothing wrong, that everything was being taken out of context. Read the affidavit for yourself. It's posted on the state's site (www.oag.state.ny.us -- look for the Merrill Lynch item under ``Press Releases''). You can find Merrill's reply on the company's site (www.ml.com -- look for the link entitled ``Independence of Merrill Lynch Research''). If you're like me, your blood will boil when you examine the state's document. It quotes liberally from Merrill Lynch internal e-mail, and it paints a seedy portrait. The sheer cynicism of these people is astounding. They're talking about companies that probably never should have been taken public in the first place, calling the stocks vulgar names even as they continue to tell investors to buy the shares. One unofficial internal rating, apparently, was POS, short for piece of . . . . Blodget and his research colleagues were paid based, in part, on what they did for the investment bankers. The affidavit quotes a Blodget memorandum that shows how the so-called ``analysts'' did all kinds of services including pitching the banking clients. The analysts did appear to chafe at their lack of genuine independence. Even Blodget, who achieved rock-star status (and pay to match) during his heyday -- he left Merrill last December -- seemed to have grown tired of the pressure from the banking side of the operation. In late 2000, just a few months before the bubble burst, he had what the affidavit calls a ``moment of candor,'' and offered to lob a bomb into the lucrative works. He threatened to ``start calling the stocks . . . like we see them, no matter what the ancillary consequences are.'' None of this excuses the insatiable greed of investors during the period in question. Merrill and its counterparts in the banking business, many of whom are also under investigation by New York state, are correct to point out that they issued disclaimers in their reports and told investors that tech stocks were inherently risky. That doesn't excuse the conflicts of interest. It doesn't excuse the love-letter stock recommendations on companies that, we learned later, had scant reason to exist. There's another disgrace in what we're learning -- the fact that a state official, not federal law enforcement and regulatory people, is the one leading this pro-investor campaign. Oh, the Securities and Exchange Commission has made a few inquiries into the activities that enriched the few at the expense of the many. The SEC did extract a $100 million settlement from Credit Suisse First Boston for an outrageous kickback scheme where favored clients got public offering shares at the initial price, sold the shares when the stock prices went berserk the first day and then paid huge brokerage fees on the sales. But the SEC and other federal officials have mostly winked at the overall sleaze that prevailed in the markets during the bubble. They've failed, miserably, to do their jobs.
RE: A story (true or not)
My Harry how you play innocent! Let see pollute and cause people to be sick, they pay I get off. It is a good idea if you are a business, not if you are the society that pays the cost. Your arrogance is sickening! Deadly, too, Bruce -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 3:40 PM To: Bruce Leier; Brad McCormick, Ed.D.; Thomas Lunde Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: A story (true or not) Bruce, How do we externalize our costs? Sounds like a good idea. I'll probably start with my Dept. of Water and Power Bill - or maybe property taxes - I'll start putting them into my hierarchy of desires. How do I do it? Harry __ Bruce wrote: Brad, How true! I'd just like to add my observation of businesses over the last 20 years. It seems, IMHO, that the major path to profits has become to externalize costs. That is to make someone else pay your costs. You do that you are a successfull corporation and get rewarded by the market. It has little to do with service or product. Bruce ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 ***
RE: Venezuela
Ray, Im not from Venezuela, but I have been hearing for several weeks about the bosses ordering their employees to participate in their demos. Hugo Chavez clearly played into their hands (or was sandbagged by some of his military) by shooting at the demonstrators. I think the demonstrations against the coup are very telling. Chavez - and hopefully soon, Brazil is (are)the only hope for stopping the re-colonizing of South America by the US. Bruce -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Evans Harrell Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:33 PM To: futurework Subject: Venezuela This was just sent to me. Do any of you know anything about it? Is there anyone on the list from Venezuela? Ray Evans Harrell U.S. ANTI-WAR GROUP DENOUNCES U.S.-BACKED COUP IN VENEZUELA April 12, 2002 According to an anti-war organization based in the United States, the U.S. government working with Venezuelan reactionaries, the wealthy classes of that South American country and the international pro-U.S. media, has fomented and carried out a military coup against the popularly elected leader, President Hugo Chavez. Teresa Gutierrez of the International Action Center (IAC) said ;the coup has all the markings of a CIA plot, much like the one carried out against the Chilean President Salvador Allende in September 1973. Gutierriez pointed out that the ;so-called strike leading up to the coup was really an action by the wealthy owners of the factories, aided by a corrupt sector of the trade union movement representing only the most privileged workers in the oil industry. The moneyed media has all joined in an attempt to blame pro-Chavez forces for the deaths of demonstrators,; she added. Our own sources, from those sympathetic to Chavez, say that it was reactionaries and police who started the shooting, and they fired at pro-Chavez demonstrators. Most of those who died were from the poorer parts of the population who voted for Chavez in overwhelming numbers and who still support him, according to our sources. The IAC, whose founder is former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, has been a leading organization opposing the Bush administrations post-Sept. 11 crusade, including the bombing of Afghanistan. It is part of the Internatioanl A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War End Racism) caoltiion, which is organizing a protest on April 20 at the White House calling for freedom for Palestine, no new U.S. war on Iraq, and in opposition to U.S. intervention in Colombia, Venezuela, Korea, the Philippines and elsewhere in the Third World. Sara Flounders, also of the IAC, said,That the Bush administration has rushed to welcome the new Venezuelan government, despite its illegal and unconstitutional creation, is a clear sign that Washington was in on the coup from the beginning, she said. The Bush administration has targeted Chavez because he had an independent foreign policy. He was friendly to Cuba and he had the courage to criticize the U.S. war drive against Afghanistan. We consider the coup against Chavez in Venezuela as part of the more aggressive U.S. military policy since Sept. 11, said Flounders. It goes hand in hand with the threats against Iraq, support for the Israeli massacre of Palestinians, and of course with the new threats of open U.S. intervention against the revolutionary movement in Colombia, Venezuela's neighbor. Below is a copy of an eye-witness account of a leader of the popular movement, directly from Caracas, published on the web site of the Belgian Workers Party on April 12, 2002: Is the resignation this morning of Venezuelan President Chavez due to a popular uprising, as the media make it appear? Nothing seems less true! An eyewitness account from Maximilien Averliaz, a leader of the popular movement that supports Chavez, directly from Caracas. By Pol De Vos April 12, 2002 Maximilien Averlaiz: The plot appears to have been well prepared. It all started with a call for a general strike for Wednesday, April 10, launched by an alliance between the organization of the bosses FEDECAMARAS and the corrupt union the Venezuelan Workers Central (CTV). The big privately owned media helped create a climate of tension. They agitated the population against the government. The strike, however, for the most part failed. It occurred only in a few places. In the other places, the bosses purely and simply closed their factories in such a way that the workers were unable to work. After the first day of the strike, FEDECAMARAS and the CTV prolonged their action for an indeterminate time period, while calling for a demonstration April 11. During this reactionary demonstration, large groups of partisans of President Chavez gathered at Miraflores to defend his Bolivarian Revolution. The poor people came down from the neighborhood on the edge of the city toward the government building to
RE: A story (true or not)
Brad, How true! I'd just like to add my observation of businesses over the last 20 years. It seems, IMHO, that the major path to profits has become to externalize costs. That is to make someone else pay your costs. You do that you are a successfull corporation and get rewarded by the market. It has little to do with service or product. Bruce -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brad McCormick, Ed.D. Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 7:34 PM To: Thomas Lunde Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A story (true or not) Once upon a time there was a company that was all gung ho and lean and mean to beat the competition and make big profits and succeed, succeed, succeed! Rah! Rah! Go us! Cut costs (including low level employee salary costs, while staffing up upper management!)! Maximize revenues! --You know it all. Profits are the raison de etre for business, right? And this company was all into it! Well, one day the company held an all hands meeting. (Actually, the company has several of these each year, but this was only one of them, but they are all indistinguishable from one another.) All the employees had to attend. And the top executives droned on and on -- while smiling and looking satisfiedly into each other's eyes when they were not seriously lecturing to the all hands -- about past successes and future challenges to be met -- ever onward and ever harder There must have been nnn employees there, all getting increasingly bored, as the top executives kept trying between themselves to say something more so that the meeting would never end. One person multiplied heads by cost per person hour and figured the meeting cost the company probably about $100 x nnn. Finally, came employee recognition time! (No, the meeting was not over yet!) A couple of the top managers got special awards for exhibiting leadership (or, although it was called leadership, in one case it sounded more like martyrdom). One lowly employee thought to him or herself that giving special awards to the top leaders for being top leaders really didn't accomplish anything, since the people who need to be motivated to lead are the lower level people, and if the top leaders aren't leading, what use are they any way, so why reward them for doing what they are supposed to do? Of course, after more than an hour, the meeting finally ended and everybody got to do what they had been wanting to do for an hour -- anything else but sitting there and wasting their time. Because, of course, while on the one hand, the information the executives told them did not include the company tactical and strategic secrets, on the other hand, it does not contain the details which will focus each employee's work, either. It's neither the forest nor the trees -- just a kind of fog or maybe underbrush And one employee thought that this showed what the real motivation of business is: Profits are used as an excuse for the top managers to do get opportunities to preen -- to do things like get up in front of lots of employees and have the employees worship their [the execs'] golden words about being lean and mean and making profits. Let's face it -- nobody sells anybody anything by droning on and on and feeling smug in him or herself about it. If profits were *really* the goal, the executives would have boiled it all down and presented the net to the employees, in a really intersting hard hitting key facts and what they mean in 25 words or less meeting that would have kept them on their seats' edge in rapt attention, instead of staring off in space, rolling their eyes, whispering to each other, etc. And all the other material would be available in a hierarchically organized way (like the first sentence of a news story tells you what it's all about, and the first sentence of each paragraph summarizes its paragraph, etc.), on the company Intranet. And the leadership awards would have gone to individuals in non-leadership positions who took initiative far beyond their tightly circumscribed job descriptions, and thereby really did make money for the company beyond what they got paid. -- My father was a sales manager. He was pleased when any of his selesmen earned *more* than he did. \brad mccormick -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) ![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
RE: Fw: Women, men and stress
Selma, Your welcome. My church, too, has those problems. As a Catholic - sort of - I am continually battling over women priests, etc. But then I look at Wisconsin Synod of the Lutherans who kicked a congregation out of the synod for daring to let a women chair a committee in the congregation. Bruce -Original Message-From: Selma Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 4:54 PMTo: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry PollardSubject: Re: Fw: Women, men and stress Thanks, Bruce, I appreciate your support. It is a sad thing to see the writing of men who otherwise seem to be intelligent but, for whatever reasons, simply must find ways to maintain the myths of male superiority. It is interesting, too, to see the way their arguments are clothed in all those specious assertions of men and women being 'just different', and then on and on about how women are really superior as long as they remain the power 'behind' the throne. It brings to mind an experience I had as a young woman. My husband and I were members of a conservative Jewish Temple mainly because our five children seemed to want some kind of religious identity and we figured ours was no worse than any of the others. So I became acquainted with the current Rabbi who was somewhat enlightened in some matters of the world and was fun to talk to about a lot of things. I asked him, at one point, how he could justify the prayer that Jewish men were enjoined to say every day thanking god for not making them a woman. He explained, in the same way I hear these explanations on this list, that women and men were 'just different' and that the work women did, i.e., staying at home with the kids, was very important but did not allow for the interruptions that would necessitate praying twice a day at specified times, etc. But, of course, this didn't mean that women weren't equal to men. Try pointing out to someone with that kind of reasoning that I would like my daughters to be able to think about having the same opportunities to develop their potentialities as person as my sone would have. 'Just different'; just different enough to justify the continuation of male privilege as long as possible. Selma - Original Message - From: Bruce Leier To: Selma Singer ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Harry Pollard Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 4:27 PM Subject: RE: Fw: Women, men and stress Selma, You go girl! I'm glad you said it before this 60 year old dude. Bruce -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Selma SingerSent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 4:01 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry PollardSubject: Re: Fw: Women, men and stress Hi Harry, I just find it very sad that you, and others like you, cannot see women as adult persons just as capable of taking care of themselves as are the males of the species. I could present you with all the sociological arguments that show that the reason you take care of the woman first has nothing at all to do with biology and everything to do with culture and the socialization process but I doubt it would impress you. However, it is attitudes like yours that make it so very difficult for women to be treated equally in the professions that have been unfairly dominated by men for centuries and that will continue to bedominated as long as you persist in holding on to your antiquated ideas which, however, serve the purpose of sustaining patriarchy, unless we can somehow force you to forego a few more of your privieges.It is also very sad to see what pride you take in the myth that you are stronger and superior to the helpless females you have to protect. It might be of interest to you to know that I am an 'oldie'. I'll be 74 years old in a couple of months. I try not to let my age get in the way of seeing as clearly as I can. With best regards, Selma - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard To: Selma Singer ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Women, men and stress Selma,Thanks - very interesting.One of the arguments against women in combat is that the men would needlessly place themselves in danger trying to protect the women. Maybe that's changing somewhat with modern men, but it would be true with an oldie like myself.I recall being in a bombed building when I was 16 or 17. A man and a women were in bed mixed into the springs of their bed (I'll leave
RE: Fw: Women, men and stress
Selma, You go girl! I'm glad you said it before this 60 year old dude. Bruce -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Selma SingerSent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 4:01 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry PollardSubject: Re: Fw: Women, men and stress Hi Harry, I just find it very sad that you, and others like you, cannot see women as adult persons just as capable of taking care of themselves as are the males of the species. I could present you with all the sociological arguments that show that the reason you take care of the woman first has nothing at all to do with biology and everything to do with culture and the socialization process but I doubt it would impress you. However, it is attitudes like yours that make it so very difficult for women to be treated equally in the professions that have been unfairly dominated by men for centuries and that will continue to bedominated as long as you persist in holding on to your antiquated ideas which, however, serve the purpose of sustaining patriarchy, unless we can somehow force you to forego a few more of your privieges.It is also very sad to see what pride you take in the myth that you are stronger and superior to the helpless females you have to protect. It might be of interest to you to know that I am an 'oldie'. I'll be 74 years old in a couple of months. I try not to let my age get in the way of seeing as clearly as I can. With best regards, Selma - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard To: Selma Singer ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Women, men and stress Selma,Thanks - very interesting.One of the arguments against women in combat is that the men would needlessly place themselves in danger trying to protect the women. Maybe that's changing somewhat with modern men, but it would be true with an oldie like myself.I recall being in a bombed building when I was 16 or 17. A man and a women were in bed mixed into the springs of their bed (I'll leave that to imagination. Every male in the Rescue Squad immediately went for the women to get her out first (you never know when the lot is going to come down on you).We got them both out - I hope to survive. But, the woman came first without a thought. This might be called instinctive, but I suspect that it's natural selection. The tribe that didn't care about its women had less chance of surviving than the tribe that cared for them. I suspect that natural selection is responsible for some, or all, the traits that Keith has noted.HarrySelma wrote: I thought this might be of some interest in light of recent conversationsabout biological differences between women and men.SelmaSent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:40 PMSubject: Women, men and stress UCLA Researchers Identify Key Biobebavioral Pattern Used By Women to Manage Stress http://www.college.ucla.edu/stress.htm Undated but from late 2001. Researchers at UCLA have identified a broad biological and behavioral pattern that explains a key method used by women to cope with stress - and at the same time highlights one of the most basic differences between men's and women's behavior. This pattern, referred to by UCLA principal investigator Shelley E. Taylor as "tend and befriend," shows that females of many species, including humans, respond to stressful conditions by protecting and nurturing their young (the "tend" response), and by seeking social contact and support from others - especially other females (the "befriend" response). This "tend-and-befriend" pattern is a sharp contrast to the "fight-or-flight" behavior that has long been considered the principal method for coping with stress by both men and women. "For decades, psychological research maintained that both men and women rely on fight or flight to cope with stress - meaning that when confronted by stress, individuals either react with aggressive behavior, such as verbal conflict and more drastic actions, or withdraw from the stressful situation," said Taylor. "We found that men often react to stress with a fight-or-flight response," Taylor said, "but women are more likely to manage their stress with a tend-and-befriend response by nurturing their children or seeking social contact, especially with other women." The UCLA study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the Psychological Review of the American Psychological Association, based its findings on analysis of hundreds of biological and behavioral studies of response to
RE: Fwd: The Genius of Capitalism
Brad, -Original Message- Not being schooled in Economics, I have come to see capitalism as just one form of human sociability: That is 1 way to look at it. However, I don't choose to socialize that way and those who do try to destroy those who choose other ways to socialize. That certainly isn't very sociable. All the capitalists socialize together, and the medium of their sociality is running what I consider to be the second, but more real government of the lands they live in. Insightful, but isn't there a need for consent of the governed?
RE: Not so peaceful Egypt
FW list, Keith has revealed the source of his problem - his book shelf. Lol. Damn. He'll probably take me seriously. I guess I'll never learn. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 6:10 AM To: Ray Evans Harrell Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Not so peaceful Egypt Hi Ray, Let me extract one paragraph from your latest message: (REH) I've been watching another possibility in the Life of the Pharaohs series on public television.Egypt had an incredible run for a civilization with a high degree of stability and affluence even amongst the commoners. The life of the Kingdom was longer than all of the various little Nation States put together, that Keith, Harry and others like to rail against. 3,500 years. Longer than Rome all the way to the present. Now that is a serious society.Of course, they didn't have Freedumb. Next to Egypt, Greece and Rome were amateurs and the current crop doesn't even qualify as in the running. Not even England. I don't know what history books the researchers of the Life of the Pharaohs have been reading, but they're certainly not the same as those on my shelves. Nor does the irenic picture of the Pharaohs correspond with my inferences when visiting Egypt two years ago where I saw acres of hieroglyphs showing Paraohs hanging up their enemies like washing on a clothes-line, queues of kneeling prisoners awaiting beheading, multitudes of battle chariots trampling down the proletariat and once-beautiful renderings and statues of Pharaohs having been obliterated by their immediate successors. Here's the historical low-down in brief: 4,000-3,200BC -- 800 years of warfare between the Upper and Lower Egypt 3,200-2665BC -- Protodynastic. A largely peaceful period when Egpyt was not so much an Empire but a region in which trading could now take place safely along a much extended, peaceful Nile, now able to connect a thriving Mediterranean economy* and the resources of inner Africa. 2665-1075BC -- Five distinct Kingdoms each resulting from social breakdowns, coups d'etats, palace revolutions, harem conspiracies, religious revolutions, and so on. *This economy being serviced by Phoenician traders with cities, islands and provinces over all the seaboard of the Mediterranean. The Phoenician culture lasted for 2,000 years and -- good gracious! -- with not a soldier among them. (At least, not a single archeological relic or wall-painting depicting soldiers has yet been discovered.) As for dig about England, well, we're a nation of mongrel barbarians really -- though I must add that we were building great stone monuments a thousand years before the Egyptian pyramids. And, in our accidental way, we have produced a few all-time geniuses such as King Alfred, the Venerable Bede, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Charles Darwin and, of course, in my own modest way, Yours truly, Keith __ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Yet more fires
Keith, I share you personal concern. I hope everything works out for your son. On the reportage front: - the BBC reported 80 fires; - the charged were as young as 9 and I've been told local kids nor your marauding bands of inner-city welfare hoodlums as you reported What sociological theory are you talking about? Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Yet more fires My son's house is now in danger of being burned to the ground by yet another outbreak of new fires a lot closer to the centre of Sydney, so FutureWorkers must excuse my concern. The police have arrested 15 teenagers and young adults, but consider that many more have been involved. No doubt the first few fires had natural causes such as lightning strikes, but the tally of well over 100 more must bespeak human origins in most of the subsequent ones -- as, indeed, the authorities believe. At the risk of being attacked again, I want to ask a question: In a civilised country such as Australia, what could provoke such criminality? Just what explanation can anybody have other than there is obviously such a lack of any feeling of responsibility and community among what seems to be a significiant number of young males? According to orthodox sociology theory, this is something that simply could not happen in one of the most prosperous countries in the world with the most generous welfare state. Keith Hudson __ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Old, Welsh and ill
Keith, Privatization really is the pits, isn't it. Really screws up a once good thing. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 8:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Old, Welsh and ill If you're old in England today and haven't children to look after you then you face a grim future in the nursing homes. (Personally, I'd rather be shot than ever enter one.) If you're ill in England, then you'll have to wait an awful long time for hospital treatment. (11 months in my case.) If you're Welsh (that dark-haired Celtic tribe attached to the west of us but which shares our public services) then that's pretty bad luck from almost any point of view. If you're old, Welsh and ill, then you're in deep deep trouble. On BBC Radio today, one old Welshman with one poor eye and the other with a cataract was talking of the letter he wrote to the Secretary of Health recently asking if he could have a cataract operation before June, the soonest date he'd been promised by his hospital. He was turned down. Another old lady in tears was wondering how long she could potter about her house (in deep pain) and look after her bed-ridden husband because she has been told by her hospital that she'll have to wait six years for a hip-replacement operation. Our National Health Service was started in 1947. Keith Hudson __ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Vituperative comments
Keith, I've been around for about 2.5 years and have yet to see rational argument from you. You continue to make black white arguments out of every issue. It is very tiresome. Bruce -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 2:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Vituperative comments Accustomed as I am to read vituperative comments about me, as some received this morning, I find it sad that a number of Futureworker subscribers prefer to think in black-and-white terms. If I write, for example, that I agreed with Thatcher's policy against over-powerful trade unions (which, in my home town destroyed several large industries, because of greed), this doesn't make me a Thatcherite. I disagreed with a great many of Thatcher's views and decisions, even with contempt. The world is complex. We really cannot afford to think in black-and-white terms -- labelling individuals irrevocably as being in one camp or another. This way lies disaster. We need rational discussion, and if some resort to personal attack then, to my mind, it shows that they don't have rational arguments. Keith Hudson __ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: economics, sense of values, perception of truth
There is also the question about what kind of forests. The statement about increased forestation is the US should be taken with more than a grain of salt. We clear-cut old growth forests and rain forest and replace that with weed trees. That is with trees that grow fast and have a life cycle of 10 years and can only be used for wood chips. While Harry's data may be right, it obscures more than it reveals, and leads to the wrong conclusions. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 9:32 AM To: futurework-scribe.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: economics, sense of values, perception of truth Globally, I believe forests have declined since 1920. Harry is right, I think, about US forests. Steve HP: Our forests are being destroyed. Every year since the mid 1920's, the annual Forestry wood count has gone up. Each year we have more wood than we had before. Our forests are not being destroyed. They have increasing steadily for 80 years. -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
RE: As I write, Sydney burns
Oh Keith ; The perfidy of it all! on Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:24 Am Keith Hudson said: snip: ...forest fires are also worse this time because car-loads of young men from the inner parts of Sydney are driving to the suburbs and starting additional fires... Some of my contacts are saying the authorities are saying this because they have been embarrassed by the job they are doing to control the fires. The young men are welfare recipients. Clearly, they have little sense of community. Australia has been immensely prosperous in the last few years and has the most generous welfare system in the world. And they welcome immigrants, too. You are a real colonialist aren't you Keith. A real class warrior.
RE: Fwd: WTO/GATS - a Coup against Democracy
Harry, And what does your race blather have to do with jobs, education, employment? Other than in the Zen way that everything is related to everything else? An ex-lurker, Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 12:47 PM To: Christoph Reuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fwd: WTO/GATS - a Coup against Democracy At 12:52 AM 12/22/2001 +0100, Christopher Reuss wrote: Harry Pollard wrote: Of course, actually taking on the Fat Cats awash in privilege might be even more worthwhile, but that's difficult so let's try something easier. [CR:] On the contrary -- the WTO represents the fattest cats and is the most difficult 'target'. Such as? Such as representatives/puppets of the largest transnational corporations who negotiate behind closed doors and without any public accountability. Don't blather, Chris - name them. Your country is fortunate - like Sweden - not to be involved in a World War. You cannot help but profit from others misery - for which I don't blame either country, though perhaps the 'planes that bombed London contained Swedish steel - as well as Russian fuel. But, without doubt, the two countries came out of the war in good shape, whereas Britain and, I suppose, most European countries, were close to bankruptcy. So, you invested in social services and they are good. The US also came out of the war in good shape (even benefited from it), but has no good health services (for the majority of citizens, anyway). Germany suffered much worse destructions in the war than the UK (and had to pay billions of reparations unlike UK), but has better health services now. It seems that your lame excuse can't explain reality. The revolution in Germany after the war was the Erhart free market revolution. While Britain was mired in the wave of the future - socialism - Germany's free market policies were producing the real future (or would have done, perhaps, had Europe become an American type tariff free internal market, rather than a political monstrosity). Yet, my health services are also good - and probably as good, or better, than yours. Of course, I have to pay for it - but I probably pay less than you. Actually, the US spends more on health care and gets less for that money than any industrialized country that offers medical insurance for everyone: The US spends 74% more than France; 78% more than Germany, and 110% more than the Netherlands. However, the US rated worst in an international comparison of general healthcare quality, and 44 million Americans *lack* healthcare coverage. I've read that in the US, people die from appendicitis --a trivial complication in developed countries-- because they can't afford to go to hospital for appendectomy. Most people in the US do well with health care. However, we have problems that Europe is, perhaps, only just beginning to have. The general figures for the US are skewed by the inner cities, which areas I referred to in my last post. These are mostly black, though particularly in the south-west and perhaps New York City, brown is beginning to make itself felt. I believe that browns are close to half the population of Los Angeles Browns are noted in Los Angeles for drive-by shootings, where invariably they shoot innocent people - notably children. I have cruelly suggested that we haul in the brown gangs and teach them to shoot accurately. The they'll shoot each other rather than the innocents. It's difficult not to get furious when the picture of yet another little kid is shot while playing on the sidewalk. There are a lot of blacks in jail, a condition which gets American liberals into a flutter of indignation. Yet, the trouble is that 80% of violent crimes are committed by blacks, who are about 12% of the population. How do we know? Economists, politicians and others shouldn't pay so much uncritical attention to statistics - like your 44% figure. Just isn't true. Such figures are usually concocted by governments anxious to prove that their government systems are best. So, how do we know? Well, the best thing to do is to infer a conclusion from statistics that relate to something else, in this case, victims. Some 80% of the victims of violent crimes are black. I hope no-one thinks that gangs of whites go into the ghetto to beat up old black women and take their welfare money. Unfortunately, it is black killing black. Also, I would bet that a lot of black victims don't report violent crimes because they don't trust the police. An inference that is more tenuous is that the crimes that are reported are probably serious, requiring hospital and automatic reporting. The umpteen smaller crimes are mostly forgotten - except by the Probably 99% plus of both black and brown people go about their business like people everywhere and deserve more protection from the thugs in their midst. So, what happens when
RE: Futurework Anniversary
Sally, Thank you for this post, and congratulations for sticking with it for eight years That is impressive. I've only been here for a couple of years now this is very timely. I was about to give up on the list because of a couple of some of the closed-minded attacks on young freedom fighters from around the world. Those attacks misuse official statistics and denigrate those who think that people are important. I look forward to some of the historical posts and, hopefully, will contribute to keep us on task. Bruce Leier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of S. Lerner Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Futurework Anniversary On December 20, 1994 we inaugurated the Futurework List by sending the following message: WELCOME TO FUTUREWORK Redesigning Work, Income Distribution and Education As the coordinators of the list, we want to welcome you and express the hope that you will find the discussion here stimulating. We see this as a list for addressing new realities from a problem-solving perspective, and we look forward to your input. Basic changes are occurring in the nature of work in all industrialized countries. Information technology has hastened the advent of the global economic village. Jobs that workers at all skills levels in developed countries once held are now done by smart machines and/or in low-wage countries. Contemporary rhetoric proclaims the need for ever-escalating competition, 'leaner and meaner' ways of doing business, a totally 'flexible workforce. jobless growth. What a large permanent reduction in the number of secure, adequately-waged jobs might mean for communities, families and individuals is not being adequately discussed, nor are the implications for income distribution and education. Our objective is to involve you in re-designing for the new realities rather than debating their existence. We hope that this list will help to move these issues to a prominent place on public and political agendas worldwide. FUTUREWORK is hosted by Communications for a Sustainable Future (CSF) located at the University of Colorado at Boulder. FUTUREWORK is an unmoderated and open list, so all messages posted to the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) will automatically be redistributed around the world. Be sure to check that you wish your message to be widely read before you send it and please try to limit each post to no more than 3 screens. Should you wish to unsubscribe from FUTUREWORK, send the two-word message:unsub futurework to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] We look forward to receiving your suggestions and comments. Please do not hesitate to contact either of us if you need help with the list. Sally LernerArthur Cordell University of Waterloo Industry Canada Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTE: The info above is historical - no longer current except for Sally's address. The next few days and weeks were immensely exciting, as the FW list began to self-organize! Posts came flying in; people introduced themselves, offered opinions, revved up conversations. (The CSF group was especially helpful in those early days.) A variety of themes began to emerge on the list (see below) and it seemed that identifiers would be needed to keep all these threads straight (though free-spirited FWers never really took to the identifier idea.) Between now and the end of the year, look for some vintage FW posts, as we celebrate seven years of the Futurework experiment. Maybe we can re-kindle some of those early debates! Best wishes to all FWers for a safe and happy holiday season. Futurework List - Emerging Themes, with Identifiers (Dec. 1994) FW: Futurework - general discussion, overview, new realities, period of basic shifts, changes ACCTS: Accounting, e.g. social/env'l costs of actions C: Competition, competitiveness COMM: Community CORP: Corporate activities, incl. transnat'l, multinat'l ECONDEV: Economic development, e.g. local, regional ED+T: Education, including job training ENV: Environmental concerns, considerations, limitations ETHICS: Ethical considerations, concerns GCI/BI: Guaranteed basic/citizen's income via various programs GRPS: Age, gender, race, immigrant, etc. aspects of FW HIST: Historical questions, perspectives INFML: Informal economy, incl. unpaid work, underground INST: Institutional considerations, needed changes IT: Information technologies, e.g. uses of, pos/neg impacts of LFSTYL: Lifestyle aspects, e.g. live simply, less consumption LINK: Linkages needed among various aspects of FW PARTI: Participatory considerations, e.g.in politics, work POL: Politics, power POLAR: Polarization of skills, income, access to various goods POLOPT: Policy options for dealing with FW realities POV: Poverty, welfare system PROD
RE: A Canadian philosopher's views on the WTO
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 3:22 AM To: Christoph Reuss Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A Canadian philosopher's views on the WTO I refer to a recent World Bank Report. Here are some very simple and transparent figures Those figures are neither transparent nor simple. As you ought to know per capita income is a measure of how well the county is doing, not a measure of how well the people are doing. The measure easily goes up if the top 10% goes up and the bottom 50% goes down. Your contention is fanciful. And your characterization of the protestors position is farcical. and if you disbelieve them then I'll give up ever trying to persuade you by rational argument. First of all, divide the poor countries in the world into two parts, A and B. The A countries are those in which the ratio of trade to national income has risen. (This includes China, Mexico and India, accounting for 3 billion people.) The B countries are those in which the ratio of trade to national income has fallen. (This includes countries like Bangladesh and most of those in Africa, accounting for 2 billion people.) Since 1980, the per capita income of people in A countries has risen by 5% p.a. In the same period, the per capita income of people in B countries has fallen by 1% p.a. (For comparison, the per capita income of people in the rich countries has risen by 2%. In other words the rich countries will be caught up by the A countries.) Let's state the case even more simply. The poverty of most of the world is due to the persistence of an agrarian economy, continuing reliance on muscle-power and thus large families and overpopulation, and co-existing with varying degrees of royal/political/military/religious tyrannies. The rich (and the soon-to-be-rich A countries) are those in which people have managed to save and invest money in specialised industries or services, the products of which they have then traded with others. This is an immensely difficult task because it involves changing the culture in deep and wide-ranging ways. It took the first country about 300-400 years to make this change. It then became successively quicker in other countries. Nevertheless, it is still a difficult task, and those who protest against international business corporations (without reference to the goodies and the baddies among them) and against international trade are doing a terrible disservice to the remaining poor of the world who presently live on about 1US$ per day. Keith Hudson ___ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___
