Re: God save us from .pdf files!
I believe this list has ban on attachments. As for web sites, I rarely look since I find the content is often more out of context than a dialogue on list. An attachment is to me, a footnote which may or may not be opened.I often do not open it if the person has convinced me that they are doctrinaire or predictable in their answers.I make a distinction between repetition and predictable because repetition can be quite surprising and interesting as the minimal soho composers like Reich and Glass have shown. I also find that web sites often take so much energy that others don't converse much about their work. I don't even give out my web site since I think it is doctrinaire and is just plain unsuccessful.It just sits there like a lump with a couple of innocuous graphics . Just a thought, Ray Evans Harrell Christoph Reuss wrote: > > So I would say make more and better attachments! > > REH, no point in argueing about this: Sending attachments to a list > violates the official Netiquette, is a waste of bandwidth and > clutters up the harddisks of hundreds of users, many of which > can't decode the attachment anyway and/or don't even have a > clue how to locate/delete the clutter from their harddisk. > > If someone *needs* to visualize content, then put it on a website and > send the URL to the list. > > Chris
Re: God save us from .pdf files!
> So I would say make more and better attachments! REH, no point in argueing about this: Sending attachments to a list violates the official Netiquette, is a waste of bandwidth and clutters up the harddisks of hundreds of users, many of which can't decode the attachment anyway and/or don't even have a clue how to locate/delete the clutter from their harddisk. If someone *needs* to visualize content, then put it on a website and send the URL to the list. Chris
Re: God save us from .pdf files!
Why? You seem to have a lot to say. In fact reading more in the form of some extended writing or a graphic or two seems reasonable. Junk mail should be junked and I do. I never open an attachment from someone that I do not know. I don't like bugs. But the limitations of my lists often reduce serious discussions to sound bites. I just returned from the Eddie Adams Workshop for photographers in the Catskills. From the greatest war photographers on the planet and many of the best artists. They were teaching a select group of younger photographers in the business. As I attended the lectures and watched these people who will form our images in the future I was surprised at 1. their morality and social activism 2. their sense of power in their profession 3. their professionalism 4. the sense of their value as the eyes of the world. They asked serious questions about the effects of their work on the future of society. Questions that would have put most religious moralizing to shame. And it is hard not admire a man or women who leaves his/her comfort and goes to a well-known unjust area of the planet to photograph its roots and prejudices only to return home to the same issues in their own streets. To be changed and made more complicated in their artistic questions and of both situations. So I would say make more and better attachments! Ray Evans Harrell Colin Stark wrote: > > > >God save us from .pdf files! > > > >\brad mccormick > > God save us from attachments! > > Colin Stark
Re: God save us from .pdf files!
At 05:29 PM 10/11/1999 -0400, Ray Evans Harrell wrote: >Why? Snip >Colin Stark wrote: > >> God save us from attachments! Seldom is there anything in the attachment that is graphically significant. Usually the message is adequately transmitted by cutting/pasting into the e-mail program. Obviously attachments take many more keystrokes to delete than e-mail I personally limit sending attachments to individuals whom I am reasonably sure REQUIRE the added information. I believe that I have NEVER sent an attachment to a listserv, where no-one has explicitly expressed their desire to receive attachments. Colin Stark
The Free Market Hoax
Hi All: I continue to submit that the problem is not "free market capitalism." Rather it is the money system that is at fault. Using the definition that capital is "stored value" either material or knowledge, skills etc., capital is a good thing and would that we all had plenty of it. The problem is with our system of money, primarily the banking system. The purpose of banking is to facillitate the trading of capital goods, originally due to the fact that money was tied to intrinsic value which was in short supply. The banks created credit (money) on the basis of "bills of lading" or their equivalent. The credit existed until the trade was completed, and the debt (money discharged. An important inhibition was placed on the banks in order to keep them honest. They were prohibited from the outright owning of property. If a loan was defaulted, the goods had to be sold and the proceeds used to discharge the debt. (Some may remember the penny auctions of the 30's) The problem began when the bankers discovered that they could delay the discharge of the debt by extending the time it took to complete the trade. For example, the trade of a car could be facilitated between producer and consumer over the period of 4-5 years it took to discharge the debt. (Time is money) The bank act changes of 1968 changed the elementary banking principals drastically. It allowed banks to own property. The consequece is that the banks interets are no longer to facillitate the free market, rather thay have assumed the dual role of both facillitating it and participating in it. The result is the same as though the major sports teams were largely owned by the refs and umpires. Think about it!!! Not only that, but the teams not owned by them had their practice times overseen by the same umpires. There are other major problems in the banking system. The ones above are the most recent and in immediate need of redress. This list is addressing the problem of "future-work." The functioning of the economy is largely regulated by the availability of the stuff that facillitates it operations, namely money. Once that elemental problem is solved, the rest falls into place. I have written before that economic activity is being "driven" by the interest factor of our money system. We can and do produce, not to satisfy needs, rather to satisfy the interets on the money that is borrowed for purposes of production. The neccessity of producing demands export of the excess. All countries cannot have surpluses in their balance of int. trade. An excellent way to get rid of the excess and keep the production machine going is to have a war and destroy a lot of excess stuff. The US knows this. That's why their most important industry is military. In a world at peace, the US comes last. There is no better reason for being provocative. "Everyone wants peace. Everyone hates the pacification process" Ed G == X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:00:56 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss) Subject: Re: 87 YEAR-OLD PERSON REFLECTS ON MODERN TIMES Cc: "Johnny Holiday/John A. Taube" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brad McCormick couldn't resist either: > > "Free markets" are oxymorons! The only way to have a > "free market" is to have a strong police force to > curtail the muggers' freedom to participate in the > freedom of the market! Naah... A strong police force would mean a strong state == the last thing that Free Marketeers would want! No, in the Ultimate Free Market, security is privatized too: A Free Market of private security services for the rich, and a Free Market of muggers for/of the poor. "Survival of the Safest"... The Invisible LongFinger will take care of it! Chris Peace and goodwill Ed Goertzen, Oshawa, ON, CA L1G 2S2, 905-576-6699 + Timocracy: A form of governance known in ancient Greece that means "government by the worthy". While at that time 'worthy' meant property owning, there is no reason that it cannot be redefined as "those who want to participate in public affairs, not only in the democratic election of a representative, but also in the non partisan formation of, and administration of, policy through local consensus followed by firm advice to their elected representatives. Anyone interested in participating in a steering committee, please contact Ed Goertzen at >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +
Can we stand a little satirical levity?
Sometimes it is important to to break down the barriers that prevent inovation. "One amoeba said to the other (with a wink?) a million years ago, "think of the potential." Christmas '88 At this time of year the contrasts of material and spiritual affluence and poverty are especially highlighted. A new season with it's invitation to reform and resolution beckons, and we take the time to assess the futility of the past year's good intentions and appraise how little society's systemic problems have changed. Perhaps it is time to take a fresh, bold new look at the problems and some alternative solutions. Bearing in mind two quotes, "If you can't find a solution, you haven't correctly defined the problem", and "Sometimes the solution is less acceptable than the problem", let's do a quick review of some of our most pressing problems. Housing - I don't think anyone will argue that thousands of people are living without housing, with inadequate housing, or in housing they can't afford. One of the root causes of the shortage of affordable housing is the number of single parent andor single income families. The single parent family in most instances being a direct result of failed relationships which in turn could not survive the financial strain of the single income imposed with the onset of parenting. Day-care - No one would argue that the lack of affordable day-care, both pre and post failed relationship is a consequence of inadequate income, and is a serious problem that our society is faced with and needs to address forthwith. Spouse and child abuse - This is another area of mounting concern for a growing number in our midst. Surely it is accepted that it is stress which calls our demons from the dark recesses of our minds and causes actions which no rational person would engage in. What greater stress than the silent ego bashing that takes place when a provider, bringing all their skills to bear, cannot provide adequately, (According to T.V. inspired standards), for those they have accepted economic responsibility for and see their offspring as an added economic burden at the same time as depriving the family of it's second income. We as a society must make a choice in finding a solution to the problem of failed relationships caused in turn by economic pressure. The widespread failure of our social structures is obviously breaking under the weight of the demands of our economic system. We have to choose if our religiously based social value matrix is going to shape our economic values, or if we will allow our economic system's values to shape our social institutions. If we decide that economic values shall predominate, then I expect that an acceptable way out of our current mess, our solution, will probably be found in polygamy. There must be many potential spouses whose skills are better economically utilized in the marketplace than as home-makers, spouses and parents, just as there must be many spouses whose skills are more valuable in the home than in the marketplace. We have to decide the priorities of our values. In one fell swoop, three major social problems could be solved, and a few minor ones besides. An obvious bonus is that the insidious wreaker of relationships, money, would be caged if not banished. Who can argue that thousands of children do not need a second parent in order to develop a sound psychology? Who can argue that by bringing separated single parent families to-gether that the pressure will not be taken off the housing market, perhaps even bringing prices down so that more polygamous families can afford them? Who can argue that three or four spouses, living together will allow each other or their children to be abused? Who can argue that two, three or four incomes in a family would be un-welcome? Houses could become even bigger to accommodate the larger families, think how happy the municipal politicians would be with the increased assessment from the bigger homes and a simultaneous reduction of the welfare rolls. We don't even have to mention the advantages of being able to deduct several spousal tax exemptions to see that the advantages are enormous. When we really take a good look at the alternatives, any objections pale to insignificance. Truly, it is an idea whose time has not only come but is demanded by the economic times in which we live. Ed Goertzen ==
New From the CCPA
>Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 14:24:42 -0400 >From: Bruce Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: CCPA >X-Accept-Language: en >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: New From the CCPA > > >October --1999 > >Dear members and friends of the CCPA > >From: Bruce Campbell, Executive Director > >This is the first of what will be regular update of new publications >from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. A lot of our material >can be freely downloaded from our web site. So check us out at: >http://www.policyalternatives.ca > >Also, feel free to contact me if you have any comments about our work. > >-- > >The World Trade Organization: A Citizens Guide > >by Steven Shrybman (CCPA/Lorimer) > > >The World Trade Organization is a global institution of staggering >power. With a membership of 135 countries and a mandate to administer >and enforce international trade agreements worldwide, it is not an >exaggeration to say that this organization constitutes a form of world >government. The WTO is using it is extraordinary powers to force >governments to modify public policies most often to conform to corporate >interests. Steven Shrybman offers an independent view of the WTO and how >it is using its powers in areas ranging from agriculture and environment >to labour and culture. > >World leaders meet in Seattle later this year to launch the so-called >millennium round of WTO negotiations. WTO: A Citizens Guide is a >timely and valuable resource for all who want to understand its profound >impacts on our lives. > >Copies of The World Trade Organization: A Citizens Guide can be >obtained from the CCPA for $19.95 each (price includes shipping within >North America, handling and GST #124146473RT). (Discounts available for >bulk orders) > > > >Ten Tax Myths > >by Murray Dobbin > >The high-powered campaign for tax cuts in Canada, mounted by big >business and relentlessly promoted by right-wing politicians, >think-tanks and the commercial media, is based on misleading data, >specious arguments, and outright falsehoods. That is the central finding >of best-selling author and activist Murray Dobbin, His report is >designed to expose and refute the prevalent tax myths and to provide the >facts about our tax system that its attackers conveniently ignore. "Ten >Tax Myths" will equip citizens with the information and analysis needed >to debunk these myths. > >Ten Tax Myths has been met by a predictably hostile response from the >tax cut lobby. For example Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute says: >"there is a superficial appeal to the analysis that does not stand up to >careful scrutiny." > >Ten Tax Myths can be downloaded for free from the CCPA web site at >http://www.policyalternatives.ca > >Hard copies are available for $10.00 each. (bulk orders are available >for $5.00 each plus shipping) > >Murray Dobbin is available to speak at conventions and conferences. > >-- > >The Future of Medicare: Recovering the Canada Health Act > >by Monique Begin > >According to former Federal Health Minister Monique Begin, the >growing privatization of Canada's health care system, government >under-funding, the de-listing of services, the imposition of >extra-charges and user fees, and the failure to enforce the Canada >Health Act are combining to erode Medicare in Canada. Now professor >emeritus at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Health Sciences, >Begin, the main architect of the 1984 Canada Health Act, analyzes and >documents the erosion of our public health care system. > >The Future of Medicare can be downloaded for free from the CCPA web >site. Hard copies are available for $10.00 each. (bulk orders are >available for $5.00 plus shipping) > > > >Out of Control: Canada in an Unstable Financial World > >edited by Brian K. MacLean (CCPA/Lorimer) > >Unless forceful measures are taken to regulate global financial >markets, the world is in danger of repeating, on an even larger >scale, the Asian financial crisis which shook the world economy in >1997-98. This is a central message of Out of Control Out of Control, >edited by Laurentian University economics professor Brian MacLean, >contains contributions from leading Canadian experts and commentators >who bring a range of perspectives and experience to this subject. They >include: Linda McQuaig, Jacques Parizeau, Douglas Peters, and Jim >Stanford. The authors explore the causes of financial market turmoil and >propose a variety of workable measures Canada can take to shield itself >from destabilizing international forces. They also stress the need for >international solutions showing what Canada can do to promote a more >stable world financial system. > >Copies of Out of Control can be obtained from the CCPA for $19.95 each >(price includes shipping within North America, handling and GST >#124146473RT). (Discounts available for bulk orders) > >Early praise for Out of Control came
FW Cure for the cancer of capitalism (Korten) (fwd)
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 18:27:48 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Bob Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Cure for the cancer of capitalism (Korten) >Mime-Version: 1.0 > > > > David Korten says: > > "The relationship of capitalism to a market economy > is that of a cancer to a healthy body." > > He then explains that the cure is within our grasp. > > > Published quarterly > by the Positive Futures Network > by David C. Korten > > > Over the nearly 600 years since the onset of the Commercial Revolution, > we have as a species learned a great deal about the making of money and > we have created powerful institutions and technologies dedicated to its > accumulation. > > But in our quest for money, we forgot how to live. > > Now, on the threshold of the third millennium we find our planet beset > by growing climatic instability, disappearing species, collapsing > fisheries, shrinking forests, and eroding soils, while the institutions > of family, community, and the nation-state disintegrate around us and > the gap between rich and poor becomes more unconscionable by the day. > > Our obsession with money has led us to create an economic system that > values life only for its contribution to making money. With the > survival of civilization and perhaps even our species now at risk, we > have begun to awaken to the fact that our living planet is the source > of all real wealth and the foundation of our own existence. We must now > look to living systems as our teacher, for our survival depends on > discovering new ways of living -- and making our living -- that embody > life's wisdom. > > > Living Economies > > Since the dawn of the scientific revolution, we have been so busy > subduing nature that we have given little thought to the possibility > that living systems might embody wisdom essential to our own lives. > > This is beginning to change. Industrial ecology, for example, draws on > life as a model for the design of closed-loop production processes in > which all products and by-products are eventually used and reused, just > as they are in nature. Likewise, a number of organizations are drawing > from living systems models to enhance the creativity and effectiveness > of employees. However, aside from social Darwinists who use only a > narrow spectrum of natural processes to justify an ideology of > unrestrained economic competition, there have been few serious efforts > to distill principles from nature's economies for the design of human > economies as a whole. Since the economy's incentive systems and > feedback loops are so central in determining how we produce and for > whose benefit, and who pays the costs, this area clearly holds enormous > promise. > > All living systems, from individual cells to biological communities, > are complex self-organizing economies in which many individual entities > cooperate to sustain themselves and the life of the whole -- as when > plants produce food and oxygen needed by animals, which in turn produce > fertilizers and carbon dioxide that feed pllant life. As Willis Harman > and Elisabet Sahtouris write in Biology Revisioned, "Trees shelter birds > and insects, bees pollinate flowers, mammals package seeds in fertilizer > and distribute them, fungi and plants exchange materials, sapotrophs, > whether microbes or vultures, recycle, birds warn of predators, etc." > The species that survive and prosper are those that find a niche in > which they meet their own needs in ways that simultaneously serve > others. > > Life, then, consists of countless individuals self-organized into > "holarchies" -- nested sets of cells, multi-celled organisms, and > multi-species communities or ecosystems with ever greater complexity > and capacity. Each individual functions both as a whole and a part of > a greater whole. > > Take our own bodies as an example. Each of us is a composite of more > than 30 trillion individual living cells. Yet even these cells > constitute less than half of our dry weight. The remainder consists of > microorganisms, such as the enteric bacteria and yeasts of our gut that > manufacture vitamins and help metabolize our food. These symbiotic > creatures are as necessary to our survival and healthful function as our > own cells. Each cell and microorganism in our body is an individual, > self-directing entity, yet by joining together they are able as well to > function as a single being with abilities far beyond those of its parts. > > Throughout its life span, each organism constantly renews its physical > structures through cell death and replacement. Ninety-eight percent of > the atoms in our bodies are replaced each year. Yet the identity, > function, and coherence of the body and its individual organs are > self-maintained -- suggesting that each cell, organ, and body possesses > some degree of inner knowledge and awareness of both self and the > larger whole of which it is a part. > > > Life's Lessons > > Lif
Re: (Was Re: Cure for the cancer of capitalism (Korten)) - Is dealing with the U-Word !
Dear Friends, all, Firstly, thanks to Brad for this. I snip, then comment. -- >From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: john courtneidge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: Bob Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Melanie Milanich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: (Was Re: Cure for the cancer of capitalism (Korten)) - Is dealing with the U-Word ! >Date: Sat, Oct 9, 1999, 8:14 pm > > >Yes, let's talk about usury. What rate of interest, >under what conditions of the borrower's life-constraints, >would *not* be usurious? Since money is dead stuff, >perhaps the accrual of interest to it is a superstitious >displacement of alienated [unreflected, or else malignly >manipulative...] thought. "Usury" Let's hear it >for: us[ur]ers -- and not just frail human bodies that >all too quickly suffer and die, but for those >super-persons, the all-too-real legal fictions: >*Corporations* -- such as the banks that charge 18% + >interest on credit cards! > >\brad mccormick --- Anything greater than 0% is usury (don't listen to what the usurers say ! ) Peter Lang in 'Lets Play' (or 'Lets go' - I gave my photocopy away last week), quotes a sixties' comment of Alan Watts, to the effect that: paying interest on lent money makes as little sense as does a builder paying his feet and inches a wage once he's built a house. Dance on friends! Hugs j ** BTW, if 0% money frightens you, and your savings' income, look at the *net* effect of interest (in Margrit Kennedy's book) - you need to be Rockerfeller, or some such, before the interest-gained exceeds the interest-paid. **
Re: Matching jobs to persons
Dear Friends, I snip, then comment. -- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Matching jobs to persons >Date: Sun, Oct 10, 1999, 11:30 pm > >Victor Milne replied: >> >> | If you look at the job ads in the newspapers etc. here, there are many more >> | jobs looking for people than people looking for jobs. The problem is that >> | the qualifications of the vacant jobs are different (usually higher) than >> | the qualifications of the unemployed people... >Chris > A useful plot of data is in Michael Jacobs' 'The Politics of The Real World' written for The Real World Coalition (Earthscan London 1996 ISBN 1 85383 350 9 ), where (Panel 17, page 73) is given: a plot of Notified Vacancies and Claimant Unemployed (both pretty squashy data, it's true) for the UK 1971-1995 (Central Statistical Office NOMIS on-line database - CSO Unemployment Unit 'Working Brief' No 71 February 1996.). Here we see: In about 1973, Claimant Nos. and Notified Vacancies were about equal, at about 500, 000. While, in 1995, NVs were about 200,000, while Claimant Unemployed (even after two decades of fiddling the measurement technique!) was 2,500, 000. This was a result of the Tories' application of the Ridley Report (leaked in 'The Economist' May 1978.) which advocated mass unemployment as the route to financial prosperity. (Ha!) And, so, the solution ? Remove profit as the barrier to employment. Hence our Campaign for Interest-Free Money. Interest is a tax on production (and hence on useful work.) Keep dancing friends ! Hugs j
