Citizen's income
Last saturday I watched a lecture by Jurgen Habermas. He supported the idea of a citizen's income. Two reasons he gave was: 1. Given globalisation and lesser opportunity for the countries to control their economies and increased competition; it becomes almost impossible to avoid considerable unemployment. In this way the international community chooses a rather high unemployment rate. And it is unfair to let the poorest part of population carry all the burdens of this choice. 2. Legitimacy. When the community chooses to keep a considerable part of the population unemployed and in misery, the institutions of society are going to loose their legitimacy. And that is in many ways the end of democracy, and the beginning of a policestate. Tor Forde Visit our homepage: http://home.sol.no/~toforde/
Wworking women and toxics (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:47:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Camp. for Responsible Technology" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wworking women and toxics Dear Friends-- Our allies in England forwarded this article that appeared in the Washington Post to us and I am passing it on to you. _ A Hard Look at the Health of Working Women By Judy Mann Washington Post, Friday, September 18, 1998; Page D20 One-quarter of women report that they work with a substance that is harmful if they breathe it or get it on their skin. Three-quarters of them have protective gear, but half of those never use it or use it only sometimes. Sixty million women are now working. They are staying in the workplace longer than ever before, and in increasing numbers they are going into nontraditional jobs. But much of the workplace, including protective gear, remains tailored to male workers, as is most of the research on the work environment and health. These were among the observations made by experts at a groundbreaking conference in Washington last week that brought together heavy hitters from medicine, science, the environment and various advocacy organizations to examine issues relating to women's health and the environment. The conference was co-sponsored by the U.S. Office of Women's Health, the U.S. Public Health Service and the Society for the Advancement of Women's Health Research. Organizers said it was the first to cover a broad spectrum of such health issues. If there was one unifying theme, it was that more research needs to be done to identify factors in the environment that have a particularly negative impact on women. Sheila Hoar Zahm, of the National Cancer Institute, described certain occupational cancers that are showing up among women. In the agricultural sector, where women are exposed to pesticides, fuels and sunlight, they are showing elevated rates of cancers, including ovarian, one of the deadliest. Elevated incidents of bladder and nasal cancers are showing up in the textile industry. Women who work at dry cleaners are showing elevated rates of esophageal, kidney, bladder and ovarian cancers as well as leukemia. Breast cancer is frequently seen in nurses, she said, and the rates are higher if nurses have handled chemotherapeutic agents and X-rays. While the percentage of cancers due to occupational exposure was relatively small -- in the 5 percent range -- blue-collar workers were disproportionately hard-hit. But she warned that much of the information on occupational cancers is based on old data, gathered from a time when far fewer women were exposed to workplace carcinogens. "Many women are in new industries, such as the semiconductor industry, and there are no studies" yet available on how they are faring. Further, she said, the occupational data on death certificates and medical records are generally poor. "Often if she is retired and she's been home for three years, her occupation is listed as housewife, not factory worker." Compounding the difficulty of determining the impact of workplaces on women's health is the fact that men and women often have the same job titles yet perform very different duties. Psychosocial risk factors such as shift work are proving to be important in pregnancy outcomes, said Maureen Hatch, of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Certain chemicals appear to be related to menstrual disorders and reduced fertility. Others items such as mercury, lead, dioxins and disinfectants are known to travel through the placenta. Higher rates of spontaneous abortions have been noted among oncology nurses and chemical workers. Breast cancer came in for its share of attention. Devra Lee Davis, of the World Resources Institute, argued that we need to be "smarter about using animal data and pharmacological data" in identifying environmental risk factors for women, rather than depending so much on epidemiological data that looks at how often illnesses show up in a given group of people. Women have three distinct periods of vulnerability to cell changes that can result in breast cancer: in the embryo, when they are adolescents, and when they are post-menopausal. While some environmental links to breast cancer have not been well established, others have, including those for some pesticides that when placed on breast cells cause a failure in cell communication and an inability to repair damage. One piece of good news that came out at the conference was that studies of DDT have found that the average level in humans is a fifth to a tenth as high as in older studies, which shows that DDT levels worldwide are dropping. Much of the conference was highly technical and, indeed, still theoretical. One suggestion that won a lot of support came from Richard Jackson, the children's environmental he
Re: Tory Party membership - err, what's the position for expats?
Dear Mr. Blackmore: Excuse my inability to understand your citizenship. I guess I don't know the answer to your question, however, I am going down to register as a Conservative Party Member this afternoon and I will inquire. You asked, "So, apart from MAI and a free trade bias (on what basis?", I assume you are asking on what basis is David seeking the Conservative Party Leadership? I don't know. However, I can give you my opinion and that is there exists an opportunity to enter politics at a high enough level to provide leadership and thence direction. Normally, David would pick a party, perhaps the Conservatives, campaign in a local riding and become another ineffectual Member of Parliament. Perhaps after several terms and with luck being in a Party that won the right to govern, he might even become a Cabinet Minister. Perhaps, if history favoured him, he might even be able 10 - 20 years from now run in a conventional leadership convention in which he would have to sell his soul to backroom deals to get a majority. By that time, I assume, like Joe Clark, a good and honest man and Hugh Segal another good and honest man, he would have compromised himself many times through Parliamentary politics that he could not honestly hold any leadership direction that was not compromised by previous exchanges of favours - not necessarily dishonest, just politically necessary. This new direction of the Conservative Party offers a unique opportunity for unconditional leadership to be asserted. Yes, he is a bit of a one trick pony, but it is a very big pony. The argument that Free Trade has put Canada on the road to practical if not actual domination and assimilation by the US is compelling. It is a bad deal and the promised advantages have not been forthcoming. It is time to renegotiate or get out before they take all our oil and gas and water under special clauses in this agreement that give the US certain proprietary rights. Because the media has been so neglectful in covering all the candidates, I would guess the average citizen has no facts on what David or the others would do regarding some of our current issues. I hope I have given you a little more info. And if I find out about your status, I will promptly E Mail you the information. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: M.Blackmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: September 21, 1998 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Tory Party membership - err, what's the position for expats? >Hi Tom > >Err, re-read my query again - I *am* a Canadian, just been resident abroad >for some 25 years and left at an age where I had never got around to >be voter registered in Hamilton before going (met an English lass who >would not leave her mother and the rest is history, as they say). > >I have followed events from afar with some interest, i.e. recall Kim >Tankie's demise with satisfaction (my parents were staunch NDP'ers and Mum >was seriously into Social Credit - *Real* social credit of the >commonwealth variety, not the pastiche it became - so the idea of Tory's >makes my skin literally crawl. > >What one does not hear, of course, is the fine grain information of events >apart from elections and such like, so Orchard is someone I have never >seen reported over here. > >So, apart from MAI and a free trade bias (on what basis? We have backwoods >Torie's here who's only basis for being agin the EC is "we fought in the >war" and "they aren't English (sic)"... > >And my question was ... can expatriatess of many year's abscence join up? >Sounds like it could be interesting to throw my small handful of sand into >the gears :-) > >Malcolm
Community Inquiry on Work
The following letter and report are being sent this week to a number of residents and organizations in the Ottawa area and to the media. Ottawa September 1998 Dear Community Resident: We are a group of Ottawa area residents who share a concern about the impact of changing work patterns on our community. Two years ago we convened a Community Inquiry on Work which provided an opportunity for ourselves and other residents to share their work-related experiences, both paid and unpaid. Through this process, and numerous conversations that took place around it, it became apparent that as a society we lack a coherent view about the place of work in our lives. Current perceptions of work and working appear to be preventing a more rewarding allocation of time and talent to the world's work. We hope that you will read this report and share it with others in what ever manner you feel is appropriate. If you are involved in a community organization, please consider it as a topic for discussion. You are welcome to publish the report in your newsletter. Thank you for your attention to the attached report. Sylvia Gold (convenor) Anne Betz Ann Denis Marilyn Fevrier Peter Johnson Marilynn Kuhn Gail Stewart Pat Webb For information:(613)729-0819, (613)730-0283, (613)730-2796 COMMUNITY INQUIRY ON WORK Final Report Background As a group of Ottawa residents we began meeting two years ago to consider the problems in this community associated with "work." We chose to convene as a Community Inquiry, a way of addressing issues of local importance in a reflective and mutually respectful manner.* We felt that the issue of work was of great importance and was troubling many people in the community in many ways. Individuals we heard from in our inquiry on work tended to see the issues from a personal or short-term perspective and to seek solutions on that basis. For example, there were many stories about work overload (long hours, limited vacations, lack of family time). The problem tended to be seen as fallout from conditions at the individual's workplace: the "corporate culture." In other cases, where individuals were seeking income-producing work, they spoke of being unable to use the skills they had developed. And some, who have left (or not entered) the paid work force and would willingly work not for the money but for the usefulness and respect associated with work, are unable to find a role that feels "right." These, it turned out, were hints. The problems expressed often seemed unconnected or only vaguely related. And they did seem to be increasing. Initial reflections Trying ourselves to understand the issues, we came to see the problems associated with work as indicators of long-term societal changes. These changes, we believe, are not yet widely recognized or appreciated. We think that a coherent systemic view may emerge as more of us talk with each other about work and working. This could lead to a more balanced, productive and less stressed society. The history of social change has taught us that "issues" develop only when we begin to recognize our own personal experience as part of a common shared experience. Work reform, as a social movement, has barely begun. But there are signs the public's faith in traditional working arrangements and its associated values and ethics is eroding. There is a noticeable receptivity to ideas that challenge conventional wisdom about work. We need to find effective means to further public discussion and debate about work and the work revolution. What seems to be missing in our community is a shared sense of the "big picture" of work and working: scope -- work as an immense body of activity that could be defined as including much, if not most, of what each of us does daily recognition -- work as consisting of unpaid and also paid activity re-valuing-- unpaid work, including volunteer work, as the unacknowledged lifeblood of communities distribution -- work as something that some people have too much of, while others are looking for more clarification -- work as an activity people may say they want when they really mean they want income, or respect, or colleagues, or something to structure their days, or feel they have a contribution to make awareness -- work as something that needs thinking
Re: The Next IMF Loan to Russia
Dear Keith: I heartily endorse your analysis and I would like to point out that this may actually become a trend/direction in the future - to actually redistribute money from the highest level to the lowest level - to create a circularity of energy. Leaving aside all the excesses and stupidities of our current governments, the crisis in Russia, Indonesia, South Korea and the other trashed economies would respond almost immediately to grants given to people. There is no other method of aid that has the same probability of instant success as the infusion of a large amount of "good" money to the poorest. In many cases, this need only be a one time grant because a certain amount of that new money infusion will stay circulating among the poor while a certain amount will start making it's way into corporate and government coffers, allowing them to have an income source so they can start re-planning their own survival. This would avert the worst effects of the coming suffering of millions of people this winter and allow the poor to plan ahead for the spring in some measure other than the most immediate survival needs. At it's crudest form, I could envision long lines of people - similar to an Army pay parade in which individuals lined to receive an outright grant of $100 US per person or it's equivalent in local currency. Once this money, however unevenly distributed enters the economy of real goods and services, it will act like a blood transfusion to a dying person, alleviating shock, allowing the body to recover quicker without having to use up it's already reduced reserves trying to create a surplus for trade. (sloppy metaphor, but it's 5:30 in the morning) If you do some math on this, 1 billion dollars would give 10 million people a $100. Therefore, 10 billion would give a 100 million people income. If Russia and Indonesia were each supported in this way, 20 billion dollars of direct aid would probably kick start both these economies. We have already given more than this to both countries (I think) with little or no effect except to protect Western Investors. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: September 20, 1998 5:25 AM Subject: The next IMF loan to Russia > >It seems certain that, even if only for humanitarian reasons, the IMF will >have to give a further tranche of money to Russia -- and pretty soon, too. >However, no coherent policy has emerged from Primakov so far. If such a >policy does emerge in the next week or two, which is unlikely, it is highly >questionable whether it would be practicable and, indeed, whether the IMF >could realistically appraise it. > >The two immediate dangers facing Russia are that: > >(a) Primakov is unable to form a government of ministers with the economic >insight and courage to force through necessary changes; > >(b) the next tranche would be as completely wasted as before. > >It seems to me that the next tranche from the IMF should be based on one >simple principle: > >It should be applied to the lowest possible level, in order to >short-circuit the multiple layers of corruption, administrative and private. > >The only practical method of doing this is to lend it to the Regional >Governors in proportion to their populations. In the first instance this >would only be a percentage game, of course and a great deal of the money >would undoubtedly be wasted. Some would be lost completely, some would be >partially wasted, but some regional loans might find their way more >directly to the population, improve local services and, with simultaneous >regional de-regulation for small and medium business, stimulate enterprise. > >I suggest that there should be only one condition for the loans. This is >that a small team of IMF observers should be based in every region in order >to record the effect of the loan on price levels and public services. This >would necessarily be a rough-and-ready estimate in the first instance, but >the benefits (or non-benefits) of a loan in any particular region would be >pretty quickly apparent. Further regional loans would then be given >according to the effectiveness of the first one -- some regions, one would >guess, not receiving any further help at all. > >Of course, this strategy would be interpreted as political interference in >the internal affairs of Russia leading, as it would, to further >administrative independence of the regions. This I see as inevitable >anyway, but perhaps, as a sweetener, a proportion of the overall loan could >be applied to the central government. However, once the conditions of the >proposed loan were known to the regions, it would be politically impossible >for the central government to resist. > >Such a strategy would also meet with objections from Western statesmen >because it would appear to undermine the integrity of Russian >nation-statehood -- and thus, by implication, their own amour propre
Re: Tory Party Membership
Dear Mr. Blackmore: Thanks for your interest. In Canada we have traditionally had two political parties, the Liberals and Conservatives with the Conservatives, from the founding of Canada up until the second term of our last Prime Minister Brain Mulroney, being against the concept of Free Trade with the US. The argument has always been that tariffs protect us from our big neighbour to the south. Currently we have three additional parties, just for clarification. Anyway, the backlash against Mulroney in the last election devastated the Conservative Party and they only had two seats in the next election, a stinging rebuke. The Liberals won the election with the promise to re-open the Free Trade Agreement, which they have reneged on. Anyway, back to the Conservatives. They are now holding a leadership election for a new party leader. The previous leader saw fit to become a Liberal at the Provincial level in the hopes of blocking Quebec from separating from Canada. Wow, as I write this, I realize how convoluted our political landscape is. Well anyway, the Conservatives being banished by the electorate to a marginal party revised their Electoral Rules for electing a new party leader so that any member of the Party can cast a vote, rather than just delegates who had been selected from the local ridings. This is quite a daring innovation as it allows the public at large to pay a $10 membership fee to become a Party member and therefore you can have a vote on who becomes the Party leader - quite democratic actually. Now, as it turns out, one of the most vocal and effective individuals who tried to rally Canadians to reject Mulroney's Free Trade Agreement has entered the Conservative's leadership race. Talk about the fox in the hen house. At first the big wheel Conservatives were laughing at David Orchard but in a David and Goliath type of scenario, David is showing a remarkable ability to get people across Canada to fork over $10 for the privilege of voting for him to become the leader of the Conservatives. Unfortunately, not being a citizen of Canada, I would assume that you cannot become a member of a Canadian Political Party, however, you have done yeoman service by your question. If David succeeds in becoming the Leader of the Conservative Party, he will have a magnificent task ahead of him, the re-orientation of this party to it's traditional roots. In the process, he will have the satisfaction of purging the last of the Mulroney hanger on's and thus getting his ultimate revenge on those who defeated him when he was fighting against Free Trade. Even more important to Canada, in my humble opinion, we will finally have a Canadian leader who is not a lawyer, or insider or elite, who will have no trouble looking Uncle Sam in the eye and saying, "Sorry, I don't think we'll do that!" Canadians always being polite except when we fight and then we just become stubborn and tenacious and refuse to lose. Now, of course, the media, being in the pocket of who ever will support their monopoly on the news has kept this whole exciting development out of sight by not printing anything of note about the upcoming election. It is going to be very interesting and in fact could turn out to be one of those seminal political events that no one could foresee that will change the direction of the country in significant ways. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde PS: Here is David Orchards URL www.davidorchard.com. -Original Message- From: M.Blackmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: September 20, 1998 6:43 PM Subject: Tory Party membership - err, what's the position for expats? >I was intrigued by your letter in FW - but know NOTHING about Orhcard or >what he has been up to (Anti MAI - err, the Klu Klux Klan is anti MAI, and >there is a line even I will draw..). Tell me more (or post a bit more to >enlighten those not resident in the promised land). > >Convince me and I will join. Only trouble is I live in Oxford, England, >and have done so for a long long time. I have never been on a Canadian >electoral roll, though never taken another passport either. > >Be interested to see if I can join - and vote. > >Perhaps send me an address for the Orchard campaign???
