Re: workfare

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much
choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting
pre-employment, education or employment? (2) What is the GDP contribution
of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer
work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare).
FWP.

On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Christoph Reuss wrote:

> Victor Milne forwarded:
> > One fact can't be ignored: Workfare's a failure
> [...]
> > How many among us have ever actually witnessed a workfare crew or project in
> > action? How many of us have seen or experienced the results of such labours?
> > Probably very few.
> 
> I have even founded a workfare project (for my NGO), and can say that "the
> results of such labours" were not a failure, but strongly depended on (and
> varied with) the individual crew members.  Some could get nothing right and
> just disturbed the others, whereas some others (mostly >40y.o.) did a pretty
> good job if supported.  Some got a "real" job, some didn't.
> 
> 
> > How intriguing then to hear news yesterday that the government is now in
> > receipt of a consultant's report that says Ontario's highly popular, but
> > faltering, workfare program requires substantial spending (most especially
> > on child care) if it's to produce real, as well as political, success.
> 
> What all crew members had in common was that they needed "permanent"
> *assistance/supervision*, some only of the work itself, but most of them
> also of their person -- medical, psychological or even psychiatrical aid.
> The problem was that the official "apparatchics" were completely unable
> to provide the latter (personal) assistance -- not in quantity and not in
> quality -- due to lack of funds and of trained assistants !  (I wonder
> where they put the unemployed assistants, but I guess there are none
> around here, with an offical unemployment rate below 2%).
> 
> Anyway, the program did (and still does) provide a useful work for the
> public and the environment (BikeStation with recycling) that wouldn't be
> possible on a business basis.  Ironically, some similar programs are now
> being cancelled because there are "not enough unemployed available"...
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 

[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED];http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex;
http://www.alternatives.com/fc

Re: workfare

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Ray E. Harrell wrote:

> It all sounds to me like a bunch of Easter Islanders arguing over the
> value of a statue while the wood diminishes.
> 
> REH
> 
> Christoph Reuss wrote:
> 
> > Franklin Wayne Poley asked:
> > > Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much
> > > choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting
> > > pre-employment, education or employment?
> >
> > No, but I think this applies to all countries...  Basically, they can
> > select the work together with their advisor, who of course will take
> > their individual abilities, preferences and possibilities into account.
> >
> > > (2) What is the GDP contribution
> > > of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer
> > > work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare).
> >
> > I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%. 

Well, being slightly smarter than the Easter Bunny I figure that the GDP
contribution of those on welfare doing homemaker/childcare work in their
own homes is far, far greater than 0.1%.
FWP.


 But as we all know,
> > the GDP is an inappropriate metric for these kinds of work, which are of
> > little economical value but of significant social and environmental value.
> > (Also, these activities must not compete with commercial services.)  This is
> > a good opportunity (esp. for NGOs) to get things done that couldn't be done
> > with 'regular' jobs, e.g. guarded bike parkings, free bike rentals, recycling
> > of various stuff, restoring old buildings, cleaning up the environment, etc.
> > One new service that my program introduced is a free E-bicycle courier for
> > shoppers, so mothers and the elderly can go shopping without a car and
> > without carrying heavy loads.
> >
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED];http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex;
http://www.alternatives.com/fc

Fw: workfare and GDP

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

Consider a Future City which is totally automated. On Future Cities and
Robot-for-President I have used the science fiction story of "Mars City" to
make the point. Mars City is first of all, totally automated. Then what is
GDP?
It is whatever you want to make it!
FWP.

-Original Message-----
From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: workfare and GDP (fwd)


>Sure-I am saying it SHOULD be in GDP. For example what is the economic
>value of home-maker work?
>FWP.
>
>-- Forwarded message --
>Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:52:30 +0200
>From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: workfare and GDP
>
>Franklin Wayne Poley replied:
>  [FWP]
>> > > (2) What is the GDP contribution
>> > > of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the
volunteer
>> > > work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after
workfare).
>> > [CR]
>> > I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%.
>> [FWP]
>> Well, being slightly smarter than the Easter Bunny I figure that the GDP
>> contribution of those on welfare doing homemaker/childcare work in their
>> own homes is far, far greater than 0.1%.
>
>Since unpaid work is, by definition, NOT COUNTED in the GDP, and
>their homemaker work is basically unpaid, I wonder how its GDP contribution
>can be "far, far greater than 0.1%".  Could you explain your estimate, FWP
?
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Fw: Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

-Original Message-
From: chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.


>Therefore all bourgeois economists are cheaters.  GDP is for the rich
>to hoodwink the poor people to keep them poor.
>
>Poverty will not be eliminated unless we can tell the people all over
>the world that GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
>
>Sincerely,
>Ju-chang He
>E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA
>Welcome to My Homepage
>
>
>Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 9:58 PM Ron Kelly wrote:
>> I agree with you -- and Chang -- on this, Spencer. In fact, correct
me
>>if I'm wrong, but if an environmental disaster occurs -- an oil spill, for
>>example -- the GDP in that jurisdiction normally increases, doesn't it?
>>That's because the resources devoted to cleaning up the spill, from
private
>>and/or public sources, are measured as an increase in output, expenditure,
>>etc.
>> Now, some may argue that all the GDP does is measure economic
>>production so such additional production should be included in the GDP.
>>That's fine but that's not the same thing as using that measure to claim
>>that the economy is improving or, more importantly, that society is making
>>progress in real terms.
>> Nevertheless, as Chang originally pointed out, that's exactly what
>>many right-wing governments and Big Business proponents claim. And with
>>their stranglehold on the mass media and the propaganda it spews out, it's
>>not surprising that many people -- including some socialists and union
>>members, unfortunately -- don't see through this manipulation.
>> -- Ron Kelly
>>
>>On September 30, 1999 6:47 PM, Spencer Fitz-Gibbon
>>[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>>>  Chang is right. GDP/GNP began as an attempt to measure ONE aspect
of
>>economic prosperity and has been turned into a god. "All we need is more
>>growth, then we can afford education and health care and protect the
>>environment". Crap -- the truth is, the ob-session with economic growth
has
>>been a distraction from the social(ist) agenda, has turned people
>>increasingly into cogs in the economic machine, and has brought a global
>>ecological crisis upon us.
>>>  Sorry to sound dogmatic! But it's an important issue, which I feel
>>strongly has misled too many socialists for too long into ac-cepting an
>>essentially capitalist socio-economic mentality.
>>>  Best wishes everyone,
>>>  Spencer Fitz-Gibbon
>>>  North West England Green Party
>>
>
>

Re: (Humor) Microsoft Democracy(TM)

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

Satire aside, it is obvious that fully developed direct electronic
democracy is just a few years away.
   And we can expect the computer companies to develop special
software to accommodate it.
FWP.

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Christoph Reuss wrote:

> [From a Polish website,  http://www.ch.uj.edu.pl/msfc/19.html ]
> 
> Microsoft Announces Microsoft Democracy
> 
> Microsoft has unveiled today Microsoft Democracy, a freeware that will be
> widely available from next month, and included in Windows 96, the Company's
> latest operating system, to be released later this year.
> 
> Microsoft Democracy will enable any Windows-based computer user to vote from
> his home, for any election, including presidential. For new Windows users,
> Microsoft Democracy will come installed automatically with Windows 96,
> without any human intervention needed. The system will use the Microsoft
> Network to connect to governmental databases in order to register these new
> on-line votes. Users will simply have to click on the icon of the candidate
> of their choice on the day of the election, and voting procedure will be
> fully automatic.
> 
> Detractors say it is not fair that the system only includes Bill Gates' own
> icon on startup, but even though the Company wouldn't comment officially,
> sources close to Microsoft say that it should be possible to vote for
> candidates other than Bill Gates with to-be-released upgrades. These
> upgrades should include all the candidates for a given election, and should
> be available at least a week before each election, for as low as $99.99
> (again, voting with just the initial version will be possible anytime).
> In these upgrades, candidate names of more than five characters will also
> be possible, sources say.
> 
> Opponents also complain that installation with Windows 96 is invisible, and
> that some users may not be aware that MS Democracy has been installed, and
> is running in their computer. To that, Microsoft opposes that installation
> is automatic by default, in order to simplify human interventions; automatic
> operation is clearly explained in the MS Democracy User's Manual, available
> on-line through MSN, or on the Internet. Also, the user can turn off default
> voting, just by clicking the "Don't always vote for default candidate" box, in
> the Custom Installation / Other Settings / MS Democracy / Advanced Options
> sub-menu during Windows 96 installation.
> 
> Every voter using the system for the first time will receive a free CD-ROM
> biography of Bill Gates (MS Dangerous Creatures).
> 
> The company expects to distribute 150 million copies of the basic software,
> and about 500 upgrades within the first year.
> 
> 
> 

*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send "Subscribe Future.Cities" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex *** 

Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

What alternative would you propose? How about if you were to become King
Jay I ? Would that work better?
FWP.

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Jay Hanson wrote:

> >Jan:
> >
> >I know one thing for certain: it's not you and people who harbour such
> >ideas, going to save the world, you just make things more difficult for
> 
> Jan has political ambitions and provides a good study of the political
> character.  We notice at once that the political character can not actually
> admit the Titanic is indeed sinking, because that would put him in the
> untenable position of having to supply a solution -- which he obviously
> can't do.
> 
> The democratic process is best thought of as "government by popularity
> contest".  And since, as Lord Russell (and many others) have pointed
> out, the certainty of a lie is more popular than the uncertainty of the
> truth, the democratic process selects for the best liars.
> 
> In our society,  the political character must excel at lies -- excel at
> doubletalk and "doublethink" -- in order to win his popularity contest:
> 
> "His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To
> know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while
> telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two
> opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
> believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate
> morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was
> impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to
> forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back
> into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then
> promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same
> process to the process itself - that was the ultimate subtlety:
> consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to
> become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.
> Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of
> doublethink."  -- George Orwell, 1984
> 
> In our society, the function of the political character is to not to
> actually solve problems -- our Founding Fathers reserved "problem
> solving" for the moneyed-class.
> 
> Madison even went so far as to boast that "the true distinction" between
> ancient regimes and the proposed experiment in government "lies in the total
> exclusion of the people in their collective capacity."
> http://dieoff.com/page168.htm  ]
> 
> In our society, the  function of the political character is to simply
> reassure and calm the common herd animals with soothing,
> meaningless sounds.
> 
> To paraphrase Marx: "Democracy is the opiate of the masses."
> 
> Jay
> 
> 
> 
> 

*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send "Subscribe Future.Cities" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex *** 

Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Jay Hanson wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >What alternative would you propose? How about if you were to become King
> >Jay I ? Would that work better?
> 
> A careful analysis of a problem is the first step in solving that problem.
> If "democracy" is government by the common herd animals, then you don't have
> it now.

Is that how you regard your neighbours? People on this list? Are you
better?

> Once you see things as they really are -- a plutocracy -- then you can start
> making constructive suggestions.

Are you one of the plutocrats? An aspiring plutocrat? King, maybe.
FWP.

*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send "Subscribe Future.Cities" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex *** 

Re: PARTNERS: International Conference on Urban Poverty (fwd)

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> A report on the conclusions of the Conference will be 
> presented to the plenary on the final day of the Conference. 
> Participants will also enter into a "social contract" which 
> will commit them to reducing and/or eradicating poverty. 
> 
A contract is a contract. Here in Canada we have a high unemployment rate 
and therefore high poverty plus there are the 'working poor.' The 
politicians bandy about phrases like social contract without having to get 
down to the nitty gritty of what a REAL, BINDING SOCIAL CONTRACT would be 
like. Let's try it out with the False Creek Model Sustainable Village 
here in Vancouver. It is being planned for 5,000 people. Not just poor 
people of course. But I would think that a number of groups of 5,000 
could be organized before it is done...and in all income levels. All have 
a stake in a sustainable future.
   Specifically with respect to the employable urban poor why not draft a 
real social contract which would enable them to buy a complete "habitat 
package" paying with the benefits they receive from various programs: 
unemployment insurance to welfare to pre-employent programs? That habitat 
package would include worker-owned industries, a pollution-free 
environment, housing etc. And the contract would be real-the kind that a 
court would uphold, not political hot air.
FWP.
(Financial Agent, Labour Welfare Party. A registered B.C. Political Party.)

* Usenet on Future Villages: vcn.false-creek; listserv on Future Cities: send an 
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "subscribe your-email-address" in the body; URL 
updates:  *

Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Colin Stark wrote:

> At 03:34 PM 2/20/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote:
> >Tom Walker answered:
> >
> >If I can try and paraphrase your answer, it would be that we should change
> because "a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way that a modern
> economy works."  And because of this, the cost of providing a worker is
> borne by society as a whole and when business becomes more efficient and
> produces more with less labour the costs to society increase.  Therefore the
> current system has an imbalance in the redistribution of income.
> 
> Thank you for boiling it down
> 
> >I think many would agree with you but the question I would ask is what
> philosophical reason would justify introducing a Basic Income in answer to
> the unspoken question of those who are benefiting from the current system?
> 
> Because!
> 
> Because IT IS OBVIOUS!
> 
> Just do it!
> 
> Who cares about philosphical, hypothetical, theorizing?
> 
> There are 3 answers -- plus a hypothetical question!
> 
Colin-There are 17 registered political parties in B.C. As far as I know 
the Labour Welfare Party (PLWP96) is the only one which has the Robert 
Stanfield concept of the guaranteed annual income as part of its platform.
Yet it considers itself as "left of left". You can contact LWP President 
William Kay, L.L.B. at 877-8051. William ran a slate of 9 candidates in 
the 1996 Vancouver election and did rather well. You might want him to be 
a guest speaker at your Canadians for Direct Democracy meetings. Let me 
know by private email how you fare with your call to LWP.
FWP.

Re: FW - Some hard questions about Basic Income 1

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

If a basic income is NOT guarnteed, then who will be refused the basic 
amenities of life first? And who will decide who is most deserving of death?
FWP.

On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Tor Forde wrote:

> The danger that a Guaranted Annual Income is posing is that it can be a
> way to put people away.
> I think everybody wants to make their part of the World their home, in
> some away. By putting their mark on it, by understanding it, by defining
> it, by creating a part of it. That is what people want!
> I am not against a Guaranteed Annual Income, but should it be without
> any conditions? I think that might be harmful to those who receives the
> Guaranteed Annual Income. People want in some way to be part of their
> World, either as the World is today or as they wish the World to be.
> A condition for getting a Guaranteed Annual Income could be to do
> something they want to do, and tell/show it to the community.
> Write a poem, learn something, build something, help somebody, take part
> in something. Just do not sit and wither away in front of a TV screen!
> Do not spend all week every week just drinking beer! 
> 
> This question has been discussed in Norway. And the reason given by f.ex
> the Labour Party to oppose a Guaranteed Annual Income is that it will
> bring up people who live in misery all their lives, many of them in
> lonelieness outside society. 
> 
> I am not going for workfare: that people should be forced to work for
> wages less than union wages. 
> 
> It is not an easy question. The Telephone company here in Norway has
> been laying off lots of people. Many of them have been keeping both an
> office and their pay for a long time, and their work have been to find
> something else to do. It has been a depressing situation to many.
> But others have been doing fine with an extra contribution, f.ex people
> with a very small farm, to small to make a living from, have been able
> to build it into something that they could live from while they were on
> a kind of social security.
> A Guaranteed Annual Income could be regarded as a kind of scholarship
> that lasted as long as it will take for people to be able to make it on
> their own.
>  
> 
> Tor Forde
> 
> 
> 
> email:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

* Usenet on Future Villages: vcn.false-creek; listserv on Future Cities: send an 
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "subscribe your-email-address" in the body; URL 
updates:  *

Re: FW Some hard questions about a Basic Income 1

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

I wonder how this one would fare if put to a national referendum?
FWP.

Re: cornucopian fallacy

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Steve Kurtz wrote:

> I didn't coin this term.( Eva: 'Horn of Plenty' is another similiar term ) 
> 
>  Here is a snippet from a paper "THE CORNUCOPIAN FALLACIES"
>Lindsey Grant (1992)
> 
> 
> An intense if intermittent debate is under way between environmentalists
> and
> "cornucopians." The environmentalists warn of threats to the ecosystem and
> to
> renewable resources, such as cropland and forests, caused by population
> growth and
> exploitative economic activities. The cornucopians say that population
> growth is good,
> not bad (Julian Simon), or that it will solve itself (Herman Kahn),
> 
> [This is the part that I was referring to specifically in my use of the
> term, SK]:
> **
>  that shortages are
> mythical or can be made good by technology and substitution, and generally
> that we can
> expect a glorious future. **
> 
> The debate has strong political overtones. If things are going well, we
> don't need to do
> anything about them—a useful argument for laissez faire. If something is
> going wrong,
> the environmentalists usually want the government to do something about it.
> The debate
> thus gets mixed up in the current reaction against "petty government
> interference" and a
> generalized yearning to return to earlier, more permissive economic and
> political
> practices.
> 
> Although there are substantial differences between their views (as we shall
> see later in
> this chapter), both men are identified with a simple message of reassurance
> to a
> society that does not seem to want to be told about problems. The message
> is best
> exemplified in the title of the article in Science magazine that brought
> Simon to
> prominence: "Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad
> News."
> 2
> 
> For the employer seeking assurance of cheap labor or the businessman hoping
> for the
> larger market, it is comforting to be told that more immigration and
> population growth
> are good things. The idealist, eager to help hungry fellow humans and
> fearful that pleas
> for lower fertility are a cover for racism, is just as likely to be
> beguiled by the message,
> unless he or she has come to realize that laudable purposes sometimes
> conflict with
> each other.
> 
> One could hardly object to having a couple of cornucopians urging people to
> be of good
> cheer and stout heart, were it not for the danger that may convince some
> citizens and
> policy makers not to worry about some pressing problems that urgently need
> attention.
> The cornucopians' argumentation, however, is seriously flawed as a tool for
> identifying
> the real and important present trends.
> 
> There is an asymmetry in the nature of the arguments of the
> environmentalists and the
> cornucopians. The environmentalist—the proponent of corrective action—is
> (or should
> be) simply warning of consequences if trends or problems are ignored; he or
> she does
> not need to predict. The cornucopian, on the other hand, must predict to
> make his or her
> case. He must argue that problems will be solved and good things will
> happen if we let
> nature take its course. Since nobody has yet been able to predict the
> future,
> cornucopians are asking their listeners to take a lot on faith. They say,
> in effect, "Believe as I do, and you will feel better." Simon says
> explicitly that his conversion to his present viewpoint improved his state
> of mind.
> 
> The cornucopians have made assumptions and chosen methodologies that simply
> ignore or dismiss the most critical issues that have led the
> environmentalists to their
> concerns:
> 
> * The cornucopians pay little attention to causation and they project past
> economic
> trends mechanically.
> 
> * They casually dismiss the evidence that doesn't "fit."
> 
> * They employ a static analysis that makes no provision for feedback from
> one sector to
> another. * They understate the implications of geometric growth. * They
> base their
> predictions on an extraordinary faith in uninterrupted technological
> progress.
> 
> We will look into some of these cornucopian fallacies, the reasoning
> processes and
> omissions that characterize Simon's and Kahn's analyses.
> (snip)
> --
> 
> more at: http://208.240.253.224/page45.htm

On the cornucopian side, there is no known limit to the carrying capacity
of the universe. However, in the short term humans could run out of
resouces and the know how to expand into a new and more bountiful
ecosystem.
FWP.

*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send "Subscribe Future.Cities" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex *** 

Re: democracy/cornucopia

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

It's not a ridiculous idea...just very limited. For example that
"footprint" should be measured in 3 space not 2 space.
FWP.

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Melanie Milanich wrote:

> Re: William Rees and his "ecological footprint" .  Most people still
> don't "get" it.  The Globe and Mail had an editorial yesterday
> ridiculing him and maintaining everyone's right to go to Florida for
> the winter and to drive a van.  They see no limits to the size of the
> pie, as U.S. consumers who are now spending more than they earn to
> keep fueling their economy. The Globe's article ridiculed Rees for
> presuming to know that "happiness" does not depend on material wealth.  
> To be rich is glorious.  But to be happy? Melanie
> 
> Steve Kurtz wrote:
> 
> > Durant wrote:
> >
> > > At the moment it is a big enough pie,
> >
> > Not according to thousands of scientists including majority of living Nobel
> > winners. Not according to Wm. Rees & Mathis Wackernagel, _The Ecological
> > Footprint_. Their estimate is that 2Billion is maximum population
> > sustainable at the *current global average per capita consumption level*.
> > (NOT the western/northern/developed level) If you won't dispute their data
> > and calculations in a systematic way, you are merely indicating that you
> > wish it were otherwise.
> >
> > The DAILY loss of species, the daily net drop in aquifers, topsoil, trees,
> > marine life, ...are not refutable. Your plea is like a tape in a loop,
> > replayed ad infinitum without evidence.
> >
> > Mid-winter break for me; next episode in Spring.
> >
> > Steve
> 
> 
> 

*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send "Subscribe Future.Cities" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex *** 

Re: [n5m3-debates] Let's Bomb Turkey, A Modest Proposal (fwd)

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Ray E. Harrell wrote:

clip

> Balkans at the moment.   Today the Balkans, tomorrow Texas or Nova
> Scotia?

Good questions and the ones parliamentarians are paid to talk about. I'm
not sure if I agree with the use of Canadian Forces or not in Yugoslavia.
How could I decide except on some very basic emotional level unless we are
told by Parliament what the PRINCIPLES are in this and related issues? Any
guesses as to why they avoid such a discussion?
FWP.

> Ray Evans Harrell
> 
> Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 
> > Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 01:22:21 -0700
> > From: Daniel del Solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Gene Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [n5m3-debates] Let's Bomb Turkey, A Modest Proposal
> >
> > there is much to be done.   daniel del solar
> >
> > Let's Bomb Turkey
> >
> > ARTHUR HOPPE
> >
> > Monday, April 5, 1999
> >
> > OUR LEADERS say we must keep on bombing Kosovo to save
> > the Kosovars from being killed by the Serbs instead. People of
> > good will can't help but applaud our humanitarian efforts, but I
> > think we should stop bombing Kosovo and start bombing
> > Turkey.
> >
> > The Serbs may have been kicking the Kosovars around lately, but
> > Turkey has been oppressing the Kurds for nigh on 80 years.
> > True, the Turks may not have slaughtered as many innocent
> > citizens in recent weeks as the Serbs have, but over the years the
> > Turks have built up a pretty darned impressive record of executing
> > dissidents, burning villages and driving peasants into exile. Some
> > will say that we can't stand idly by while 2 million Kosovars are
> > being hounded by the evil Serbs. Nonsense, we are very good at
> > standing idly by. Look how idly we stood by when the Hutus
> > were hacking to death 800,000 Rwandans. Of course the
> > Rwandans were not only black, but had no oil fields to speak of.
> >
> > Instead of bombing Kosovo in the humanitarian spirit, I say we
> > should make diplomatic protests to Belgrade. Diplomatic protests
> > worked just as well in punishing oppressors in China, South
> > Africa and Latin America as did our bombs in Vietnam, Libya and
> > Iraq. From all accounts, all our bombs have accomplished so far
> > in Kosovo is to drive the Serbians into committing more and more
> > atrocities.
> >
> > But if we must bomb someone to save our national honor, I say
> > we should bomb Turkey. First of all, great big Turkey is easier to
> > hit than tiny little Kosovo. Second, there are 25 million Kurds to
> > save with our bombs -- more than ten times the number of
> > persecuted Kosovars.
> >
> > To be sure, there are a few obstacles to bombing Turkey. For one
> > thing, she's our staunch NATO ally. That means the Kurds who
> > are fighting for freedom are not freedom fighters. Our State
> > Department has officially labeled them as terrorists and rightly so.
> > As you know, a freedom fighter is fighting for independence from
> > someone we don't like; a terrorist is fighting for independence
> > from someone we do.
> >
> > So the Kurds are official terrorists, and we certainly can't engage
> > in a humanitarian bombing campaign in favor of terrorists.
> >
> > What about China? China is no friend of ours. Therefore, those
> > fighting for freedom in China are freedom fighters, not terrorists.
> > But China is awfully big, and it has nuclear missiles, too. There's
> > no sense getting carried away by our humanitarian feelings.
> >
> > Then we have East Timor. The inhabitants declared the
> > Democratic Republic of East Timor in 1975, and the Indonesians
> > have been kicking them around ever since. As I recall, though, the
> > Indonesians are our pals these days, so the East Timorians may
> > well be terrorists. Anyway, ``Democratic Republic'' sounds
> > vaguely communistic, and we certainly don't want to waste our
> > vast arsenal of humanitarianism on a bunch of commies.
> >
> > Sri Lanka's a likely candidate. The Sri Lankans have been
> > butchering the rebel Tamil Tigers for years. Unfortunately, I'm
> > not sure who's on our side. But what about the Congo? Or
> > Burkina Faso? Or maybe . . .
> >
> > Anyway, there are oppressed people all over the world who
> > deserve our humanitarian bombs. So what have the Kosovars
> > done to merit our magnanimous concern?
> >
> > Arthur Hoppe's column appears Mondays, Wednesdays and
> > Fridays. It is also available at sfgate.com. E-mail:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > The American Kurdish Information Network
> > 2623 Connecticut Avenue NW # 1
> > Washington, DC 20008-1522
> >
> > Tel: 202.483.6444
> > Fax: 202.483.6476
> >
> > The American Kurdish Information Network (AKIN) provides a public
> > service
> > to foster Kurdish-American understanding and friendship
> 
> 
> 
> 

[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED];http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex;
http://www.alternatives.com/fc

Re: [n5m3-debates] Let's Bomb Turkey, A Modest Proposal (fwd)

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Ray E. Harrell wrote:

> Franklin Wayne Poley wrote:
> 
> > Good questions and the ones parliamentarians are paid to talk about. I'm
> > not sure if I agree with the use of Canadian Forces or not in Yugoslavia.
> > How could I decide except on some very basic emotional level unless we are
> > told by Parliament what the PRINCIPLES are in this and related issues? Any
> > guesses as to why they avoid such a discussion?
> > FWP.
> 
>  For the same reason that most commercial art is crap.  It's dangerous
> and you  could lose your constituency.   

Bull's eye. It is also obvious that if Reform, with its 50 MP's really
wanted a "real democracy", ie a direct democracy, they would expedite the
use of freenets/community nets in their ridings. Not one does this and I
have asked them repeatedly to consider it. I think they are as afraid as
the rest of them about the "dictatorship of the proletariat", maybe even
more so.
FWP.

[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED];http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex;
http://www.alternatives.com/fc