Very stressed Harry, But you keep bringing up Starbucks. That was someone else. I have a Starbucks downstairs and can walk less than a block to get to it. I would not however, like a sweatshop downstairs and the pollution from the plants and mines that were simply in my small town gave us both asthma and lead poison. I would not wish the same off on you. As for the Saint Lawrence, those big plants have destroyed the economy of Akwasasne Reservation making their land a mess and the river which is sacred and carries many of their ceremonials, a toxic problem. Sort of like putting a sewer plant upstream from the worshippers on the Ganges. But that is not unusual. The Indian people in South Dakota are struggling to rescue the remains of their ancestors from one of the ancient burial grounds in the US as the bulldozers dig them up for recreation. http://www.indiancountry.com/article/1055358290
They did it to the ancient peace city Chota in Tennessee and the difference now being that the old tradition of Indian law has come back due to the money generated by Casinos. Instead of leisure creating art which we always had, leisure and money creates lawyers. But I am a man from the prairies who loves the city. As long as the factories are located far enough away to make it safe for the very closely packed city dwellers I'm happy having retail establishments close by. I would also add that the art and science of architecture and serious urban planning should be exercised for the good of all. People who are dumb aesthetically create nightmares. People who aren't plan for the best, humane and most stimulating environments. All other people live on the outskirts. Many things can be located in the city if you are willing to assign serious liability of damages if poorly planned. We even have a sewer plant under a park and thus far it seems to work OK although there are big problems with asthma in Harlem where the plant is located. Whether the problem relates is still under question. I believe that most of these issues have to do with what you said. The assignment of responsibility. Science is beginning to make us understand the implications of our environment on our brain development, our creativity and our future existance. If a person is creating destruction then it must be stopped no matter what the loss of their personal indulgence. As for red doorsteps. That is a Shibboleth. A phrase that is used in an argument to put something or someone you don't like on the other side of an absurdity. In the good neighborhoods in Republican libertarian Tulsa, Oklahoma if a neighbor lets their house run down, doesn't cut the grass and has too many cats, they will be served a summons because it lowers the monetary value of the property in the neighborhood. None of these Libertarians defend that person's right to be a slob in their neighborhood and hurt their house value. After all they moved out of the inner city because they didn't want to live next door to blacks either. It just depends upon who rights are being hurt as to where they stand. I have to work now. Ray Evans Harrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fruits of Work. Ray, Respect and mutual responsibility means that where you cannot avoid interference you step back rather than intrude. If an appreciable number of people want to get a morning coffee from Starbucks, I think they should be allowed to get it. I have never bought a coffee from Starbucks. Should I be allowed to stop others from buying one? We don't have a Starbucks in Tujunga - though we've just had a McDonald's open up (which may mean we are now part of the civilized world. We do have a drive-in coffee shop about 2 miles away. When it opened, I wondered how long it would last - a drive-in just for coffee? That was 5 years ago. It's still there. When my San Diego kids visit, on Sunday morning one drives down to get coffees. It comes back in a large plastic cup. It has to be hot in order to be drinkable when it arrives home. (Don't hold it between your knees.) In the grey climate of small English council houses (low-cost government housing) a lady painted her doorstep red - this was back in the fifties before Thatcher freed the houses into the hands of their tenants. The local council met to discuss this overwhelmingly important matter. After all, if one person did it, perhaps others would paint their doorsteps - maybe purple, pink, or puce. The chaste grey of the neighborhood would be gone. The lady was ordered to return her doorstep to grey, and the community breathed easier again. (The council were petty upstart snots.) I cannot imagine you, Ray. taking the side of the council against this lone butterfly spreading her wings. Yet, there may be people living in the community who don't like red. Should they step back rather than intrude? Arthur is a good bloke but he simply loves regulations. He likes to settle back and doze in a bed full of laws. He would love California that in one year passed 1,400 laws. - about 26 a week. This discussion revolved around Walmart - the largest retailer by far in the US. In other words, Americans like to shop at Walmart. I suppose Arthur would say 'they are "seduced" by the consumer economy and (fritter) away their earnings on ephemeralities.' Be that as it may, they are making their own decisions and though we may sneer a little at their lack of intellectual awareness, I rather think they know better how to make the pennies work than the sophisticates with pockets full of folding money. Because they have to. I would hazard a guess that many of these "community regulations" are designed less to create an oasis of culture, than to keep out undesirables. But maybe I'm just jaundiced. Harry --------------------------------------------------------- Ray wrote: >Everyone interferes with each others lives. The point is respect and mutual >responsibility. Then you work out what is the most humane for all. These >absolute laws are worse than useless, they are genocidal. Reason is >limited by the limits of your argument. Basic rule number one in debate. > >REH > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:18 AM >Subject: RE: [Futurework] Fruits of Work. > > >Arthur wrote: > > >Perhaps they are not paid enough. > >Then we should ask why. > > > Perhaps they were "seduced" by the consumer economy and frittered away > > their earnings on ephemeralities. > >One person's ephemerality . . . . . . . > >You really must stop yourself from interfering with other people's lives. > >I'm aware you are much better able to decide what is good for others, but >please - let them make their own mistakes. > >More seriously, Douglas Jay was a functionary in the first post WWII Labor >government. He made himself somewhat famous (notorious?) by declaring 'We >have people in Whitehall who know far better than the British housewife >what she should do." (Keith knows about him.) > >Well, I say to hell with Douglas Jay and all the others in government who >arrogantly and coercively want to make us march in lock-step with their >certainties. > >Harry >---------------------------------------------------- > > >arthur > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:43 PM > >To: Tor F�rde; Futurework > >Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fruits of Work. > > > > > >Tor, > > > >The article was good. > > > >The real question is that after 40 or 50 years of work, why cannot people > >save enough to provide for their remaining years? > > > >Harry > > > >------------------------------------------------------ > > > >Tor wrote: > > > > > > >From: > > >Le Monde diplomatique > > > > > >Tor F�rde > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >LEADER > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Death by work > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >By IGNACIO RAMONET > > > > > > > > > > > >THE International Labour Organisation (ILO) has just published a report > > >(1), largely ignored in the press, claiming that every year 270 million > > >employees are injured worldwide in accidents in the workplace and 160 > > >million affected by work-related illnesses. The report reveals more than >2 > > >million workers die on the job each year - 5,000 people killed by their > > >work every day. These statistics, the report makes clear, are an > > >underestimate (2). > > > > > >In France, according to the Caisse nationale d'assurance maladie (CNAM), > > >780 workers are killed annually in the workplace (that is more than two a > > >day). These figures are also an underestimate; there are around 1,350,000 > > >work accidents a year (3) - 3,700 victims every eight-hour day, and eight > > >injured every minute. > > > > > >The defenders of workers' rights used to call this exaction in the name >of > > >economic growth and competition a blood tax (4). We should remember that > > >phrase when we come to look at the current debate about pensions and > > >retirement, and consider the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers > > >worn out and tossed on the scrap heap when they reach the end of their > > >working lives. They are often deprived of the opportunity to enjoy their > > >pensions at all because, though life expectancy has increased, there has > > >also been (as an outcome of worsening workplace hazards) an explosion in > > >illnesses that most afflict older people age: cancers, cardio-vascular > > >disease, depression, strokes, loss of sensory perception, arthrosis, > > >senile dementia, Alzheimer's. > > > > > >This makes the present attack on pensions all the worse; the attack has > > >been coordinated and driven by forces of globalisation (5), such as the > > >G8, the World Bank (6) and the OECD (7), all of which have been attacking > > >social security (8) and the welfare state since the 1970s. The policy has > > >been picked up by the European Union, where prime ministers and > > >governments of both left and right (Jacques Chirac and Lionel Jospin in > > >France) decided, at the Barcelona Summit in March 2002, to push back the > > >retirement age by five years. This is a serious step backwards and an > > >abandonment of plans to build fairer and more balanced societies. > > > > > >While employees are getting poorer, wealth is still concentrated at the > > >top: 30 years ago an employer received about 40 times the average wage of > > >a worker. Today an employer earns a thousand times more (9) and can look > > >forward to the day of retirement with equanimity. This is far from being > > >the case for ordinary employees, especially teachers. > > > > > >Hundreds of thousands of teachers in Italy, Spain, Germany, Greece, > > >Austria and France have been striking to protest against the dismantling > > >of the pension system. The system does need reform for at least two > > >reasons: the active working population is shrinking while the number of > > >retired people is increasing; and the economic weight of pensions, today > > >equivalent to 11.5% of GDP in France, will rise to 13.5% in 2020 and >15.5% > > >in 2040, to become a major expenditure for the state. > > > > > >Despite the stock market crash, which has wiped more than 20% off the > > >value of pension funds, the option of financing pensions by savings has > > >not been ruled out. All the more so because the full cost of reform of >the > > >contribution-based system will fall on employees, as if it were merely a > > >technical problem of no consequence for society as a whole. All the > > >variables - the amount and period of contributions, the age of >retirement, > > >the final amount of a pension - are systematically being changed to the > > >detriment of employees and incomes. No alternative solutions have been > > >considered, such as calling on society for a contribution, or taxing > >profits. > > > > > >It is considered normal in France that two workers lose their lives at > > >work every day, and eight others are injured or fall every minute in the > > >cause of private enterprise. But it is not considered "normal" that > > >companies and capital should be called upon to put more into the pensions > > >of their employees. It is not surprising that workers are angry. > > > > > >---------- > > >(1) > > > ><http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/2003/18.htm#note1>http://w > >ww.ilo.org/public/english/b... > > > > > > > > >(2) See report Safety in Numbers: Suggestions for a World Culture of > > >Safety at Work, International Labour Organisation, Geneva, 28 April 2003. > > > > > >(3) Les Echos, 7 November 2002. > > > > > >(4) See "Les accidents du travail. L'imp�t du sang. 19 d�cembre 1906" in > > >La Guerre sociale: Un journal contre, Les Nuits rouges, Paris, 1999. > > > > > >(5) The relationship between pensions and globalisation is close: in the > > >United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands and the United > > >Kingdom contributory pension schemes feed the giant pension funds that > > >have become central players in the new world of finance capital. > > > > > >(6) See the World Bank report Pension Reform in Europe, > > > ><http://publications.worldbank.org/ecommerce/catalog/product?item_id=1676 > 31>0>http://publications.worldbank.org/e.... > > >On its offensive against social security see > > > ><http://forums.transnationale.org/viewtopic.php?t=11>http://forums.transnat > >ionale.org/vi.... > > > > > > > > >(7) El Pa�s, Madrid, 20 May 2003. > > > > > >(8) The Chadelat Report, published in April, promises a radical challenge > > >to the sickness benefit system. It aims to dismantle and privatise the > > >social security system. See the text of the report at > > > ><http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/brp/notices/034000159.shtml>http:// > >www.ladocumentationfrancaise.... > > > > > > > > >9) Lib�ration, 21 May 2003. > > > > > > > > > > > >Translated by Ed Emery > > > >**************************************************** > >Harry Pollard > >Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > >Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > >Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > >http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > >**************************************************** > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003 > >**************************************************** >Harry Pollard >Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles >Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 >Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 >http://home.attbi.com/~haledward >**************************************************** > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >---- > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003 **************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward **************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
