I just watched a racist piece this morning at the
American Theater Alliance about Indian killers of
"White Children." The crowd wept as the
pregnant Mother escaped the savages and swam
the raging torrent to find her husband.
But then there is this post which seems to say
that the benevolent loving pioneer's descendants
have screwed it up. Or have they?
Maybe it just goes to show you how Western spiritual
practices "work." As Red Jacket a Seneca chief said
after being told by a minister about the superiority of
his book over RJ's way of his ancestors, "I am impressed
by both your book and your words. Now we will take a
little time and see about your actions, what kind of neighbors
and friends you turn out to be." The preacher left without
even shaking his hand.
The more things change the more they stay.............
REH from the NYCity res. just watching.
Melanie Milanich wrote:
> Actually for the $520 monthly "workfare" in Ontario a person is expected to work
> 17 hours per week--supposedly using the rest of the time to apply for more
> permanent work. But even before it was implemented the recipient had to provide
> a list of places, with names of personel directors, that (s)he applied to. I
> think 10 were required per week.
> Which one would think is a fulltime "job"
> Today the CBC interviewed a grandmother who has legal custody of her five
> grandchildren. She was forced to obtain workfare. She leaves home early and does
> not get back until after they have left school, and two of the children have
> serious problems with school and the law but she is now not able to attend to
> their problems.
> I have one "workfare", person renting a room in my house. He is in
> training courses.
> But since I charge him $300 a month for rent, transit fare is $88 per month, and
> he has a phone for $29 per month--his $520 does not stretch for food, clothes,
> personal care,
> let alone books, newspapers, postage stamps, vitamins, entertainment or
> socializing
> (he washes his clothes with bars of soap in my bathtub and hangs them in his
> window
> and I won't tell you what he uses for toilet paper) and his religion requires
> him to give 10 percent of income to the mosque.
> There was a program on the radio this morning about the increase in evictions
> since the province enacted the "Tenants Protection Act" allowing landhoards to
> evict tenants and convert to condominiums and charge more. With the increase
> in evictions are increasing numbers of single mothers in homeless shelters and
> living on the streets. They represent the group with the largest increase in
> numbers of homeless. And to top it off, the newly appointed federal Minister of
> Homelessness has announced that she has finished her "research" and will shortly
> present to cabinet her information. She is quoted in the newspapers to the
> effect that she doesn't know if they will do anything about it, but she will
> give them the information that she gathered!
> john courtneidge wrote:
>
> > Dear Friends
> >
> > I snip and then comment.
> > ----------
> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss)
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Subject: Re: workfare
> > >Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1999, 3:00 pm
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >Victor Milne calculated:
> > >> If a workfare participant works 8
> > >> hours each working day (22 workdays in the average month) for his welfare
> > >> benefit of $520 a month, then he is being paid $2.95 an hour.
> > >
> > >Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher. Considering that the
> > >workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing
> > >work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to
> > >maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think
> > >this wage isn't too bad...
> > >
> > >Chris
> >
> > ------------
> > One intriguing aspect of wages under capitalism is that the people who do
> > the crap jobs get the crap money.
> >
> > Given that, as income (and wealth) inequality grows, ill-health also grows
> > (Richard Wilkinson's book) then we *have* to work out how to close the
> > present, obscene factors of income inequality.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > j
> >
> > ************
