[PEN-L:3221] In Other Words
Following up other recommendations on the New York Times pieces I decided to post this important dictionary. Note that while the New York Times refers to "slang" in the introduction there are no actual "worker" based slang in the article (and there are a few choice and colorful phrases about being fired from the "other side"). My favorite point of irony to note: while all the terms in the above could accurately be called "orwellian" the NYTimes article singles out a few examples and comments "some terms border on the Orwellian". =20 N=A9 All copyrights infringed are willful.=20 In Other Words For most executives saying flatly that the company is firing hundreds of people can be unpalatable. So euphemisms have proliferated to the point where there are nearly as many for firing as there are for death, according to one dictionary of euphemisms and slang. Here are some examples. Instead of "fired": =20 bumped decruited de-hired deselected destaffed discontinued disemployed dislocated displaced downsized excessed involuntarily separated nonretained nonrenewed severed surplussed transitioned vocationally relocated Instead of "layoffs":=20 degrowing executive culling job separation payroll adjustment personnel surplus reduction reduction in force or "rif" (verb form:" I was riffed") redundancy elimination refocusing job the skill mix refocusing of the skill mix resource reallocation reorganization right-sizing work force imbalance correction Some terms border on the Orwellian. Chase Manhattan calls the people it lays off "saves," as in savings to the bank. ATT's "force management program" is meant to reduce an "imbalance of skills"; people almost certain to lose their jobs are "at risk" or "unassigned." At the opposite extreme is a blunt expression attributed to the Canadian newspaper magnate Conrad Black: His executives know just what he means by "drowning the kittens."=20 (Sources: Rawson's Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk; "Doublespeak: From Revenue Enhancements to Terminal Living", by William Lutz; Executive Recruiter News)=20 Jim Westrich Institute on Disability and Human Development University of Illinois at Chicago " . . . they never told him the cost of bringing home his weekly pay and when the courts decide how much they owe him how will he spend his money as he lies in bed and coughs his life away?" from "He Fades Away" by Alistair Hulett
[PEN-L:3224] Re: Buchanan
I don't think that those who use an appeal to small business are really appealing to small business itself, but the failing segments of small business and the frustrated lower classes who aspire to be part of the small business sector. Even so, B. does not seem to be able to appeal to more than 30% of the minority of the Repubs. who vote in primaries. He is not a threat himself except that he makes vile sentiments more respectable for the other more "mainstream" candidates. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3225] Re: Buchanan, rentier
At 10:35 PM 3/3/96, Blair Sandler wrote: At 7:55 PM 3/3/96, Doug Henwood wrote: For those of you who missed this (and I'm only forwarding the first few paragraphs of this long story so I don't hear copyright infringement complaints): WASHINGTON (AP) -- Presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan has extensive stock holdings in companies that he regularly bashes for putting profits before people, according to the candidate's financial disclosure statement. Buchanan has thousands of dollars invested in such blue-chip companies as ATT, IBM, General Electric and DuPont, which have laid off workers to boost profits or invested heavily in building plants outside the United States. The candidate earned thousands last year from dividends paid on the investments, the financial report shows. [...] Doug, where is this from? An AP story, picked off Compuserve. Don't know where it's appeared in print, though. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:3226] Re: MCB overview?
There is a marvelous book that fits Dale's needs. It is "A History of Banks and Banking from the Revolution to the Civil War." Author is Bray Hammond and it won a prize when published. I think it was published around 1958 or 1959. It is very readable and it should be a book read by every student studying Money Banking. It is authoritative and would set students right about the objectives of banks -- I found that a lot of them believe banks are trying to assist the community in financing jobs and housing!
[PEN-L:3227] Re: Classics
As a Ph.D. student at Colorado, I didn't even read Smith! Smith??
[PEN-L:3230] Re: Classics
C.N.Gomersall wrote: As a Ph.D. student at Colorado, I didn't even read Smith! Smith?? Not surprising. Most graduate economics departments don't teach the history of economic thought, methodology, or political economy in any systematic manner. Why should they? After all, econometrics is what's *really* important to learn, right? ... but, don't get me started. If I start talking about the inadequacies and prejudices of most economics departments, I could keep talking for some time. My blood pressure might go up as well. Jerry
[PEN-L:3232] Re: Classics
Michigan had a regular two-semester grad course in history of economic thought when I was there (1980's--I was in phil and polisci). They also had a pretty good political economy track, but Tom Weisskopf tells me it's been destroyed, they won't even let him teach grad students any more. He's a bitter man. Wesleyan, of course, recently hired Gil Skillman, so presumably they teach history and pol econ there. --Justin On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Mike Meeropol wrote: C.N.Gomersall wrote: As a Ph.D. student at Colorado, I didn't even read Smith! Smith?? An even more interesting question: how many graduate programs offer a course in the History of Thought every year -- even if it's not required? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3233] Re: Buchanan
Dear friends, I agree with Mike Meeropol about Buchanan. In a class I was teaching to local unionists in Johnstown, PA in labor economics, some students expressed some support for Buchanan because he was the only candidate talking about thei issues that they were worried about. When I pointed out that Buchanan had made many racist, homophobic, etc statements, these students suggested that this is what his enemies and the press were saying about him, but this did not mean that they were true. they thought that there was a conspiracy against Buchanan! Of course, most of the unionists did not like Buchanan, but I can see how he will appeal to some workers. in solidarity, michael yates [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3234] Re: Classics
Columbia has the luck of having the Barnard economics department, headed by the two pretty heterodox economists Duncan Foley and Andre Bergstaller. Bergstaller is teaching a graduate history of economic thought course this semester that I'm taking (I think someone does every year) and it's pretty good tho I think he and I interpret Marx differently (we're still on Smith; Marx starts next week). Of course this is all well within the range of the rather talmudic Marxology debates on Pen-L that many of us have to own up to participating in... Cheers, Tavis On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Mike Meeropol wrote: An even more interesting question: how many graduate programs offer a course in the History of Thought every year -- even if it's not required? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3235] E;NYT, A 2,000-Mile Fence? Mar 3 (fwd)
March 3, 1996
Home Improvement: A 2,000-Mile Fence? First, Get
Estimates
By SAM HOWE VERHOVEK
[H] OUSTON -- If he is elected president of the United
States, Pat Buchanan vows, "I will stop this massive
illegal immigration cold. Period. Paragraph."
Or, as he put it to a crowd in Waterloo, Iowa: "I'll
build that security fence, and we'll close it, and we'll
say, 'Listen Jose, you're not coming in!"'
Leave aside that any fence, in itself, could only do so
much to accomplish Buchanan's aim: half of all illegal
immigrants come to this country legally but overstay
their visas, according to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
And leave aside that even Buchanan, when pressed for
details, says he is not REALLY talking about building a
fence or a wall across all 2,000 miles of the
U.S.-Mexican border.
But just how much would such a thing cost?
The answer is, anywhere from $166.8 million to $45.2
billion, a wild range that will make sense to anyone who
has ever tried to pin down a home improvement
contractor.
These figures, gleaned from experts ranging from
professors of civil engineering to industry
representatives and salesmen vary for several reasons,
including the cost of materials and of labor.
The on-the-cheap estimate is for a standard chain-link
fence, using figures from the Chain Link Fence
Manufacturers Association of America of Washington,
D.C., and Atlas Fence Co. in Houston.
"Let's see now," said Chris Cashore, Atlas' senior
estimator, punching some numbers into his calculator.
"You're talking 2,000 miles by 12 feet high, at our
standard rate of $15.80 per linear foot." (No offer was
made of any volume discount.)
"That'd be $166,848,000," said Cashore, letting out a
low whistle. "Man, I'd love to have that job."
Southwestern Fence Co. ("No job too small or large,"
says the ad in the phone book) offered a strikingly
similar estimate, but advised there were no guarantees
that such a fence could not be cut or torched through. A
thicker, stronger steel fence would run upwards of $835
million.
At the other end of the price range, the $45.2 billion
estimate is for the only kind of barrier that some
experts said might work: an exact duplication of the
Great Wall of China, 25 feet high and 20 feet deep at
its base, tapering to 12 feet up top.
Walter W. Boles, a civil engineering professor at Texas
AM University, calculated the price using the 1996
edition of an industry bible known as the Means Building
Construction Cost Data Manual.
"It's pretty simple to give you an estimate," said the
professor. The Great Wall job would require 180 million
cubic yards of concrete, and the industry standard,
factoring in prevailing union wage rates, is $250 per
cubic yard. Result: $45.2 billion.
The wall would be longer than China's 1,500-mile
prototype. (The Great Wall was assembled over hundreds
of years; in this country, legal wrangling over the
environmental impact statements alone might take that
long before concrete was poured.)
It would dwarf any construction project envisioned by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, making President
Buchanan more of a New Dealer, in one sense, than FDR.
Of course, Buchanan, who is running as a fiscal
conservative, could save the American taxpayer at least
$18.3 billion on this New Great Wall by doing what many
contractors do: hire illegal immigrants from Mexico at
$1.25 an hour, less than one-twelfth the union rate.
Or he could privatize the job. But companies that might
truly have the resources to do the work -- behemoths
like the Bechtel Group and Brown Root -- said it was
impossible to provide estimates.
"There are fences and there are fences," said a Bechtel
spokesman. Besides, he added, the company might not even
bid on the a project: "We're pro-NAFTA."
The only institution with any experience building fences
along the border, the federal immigration service, said
there was no way to estimate the cost of a barrier from
the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. "There are just
too many variables," said a spokesman. The
[PEN-L:3237] Re: Classics
Justin (hi!) writes: Michigan had a regular two-semester grad course in history of economic thought when I was there (1980's--I was in phil and polisci). Yes, but it wasn't required, so that most students didn't take it, and thus most students never even read Adam Smith. They also had a pretty good political economy track, but Tom Weisskopf tells me it's been destroyed, they won't even let him teach grad students any more. Damn good PE track, if you ask me, and Justin's right, the powers that be killed it off via intentional attrition. As for Tom, if he's still on the list he can verify this, but it's not so much they won't "let" him teach grad students, but that in the absence of the PE program he doesn't really want to, and he has consequently redirected his energies elsewhere. Wesleyan, of course, recently hired Gil Skillman, so presumably they teach history and pol econ there. And indeed they--sorry, we-- do. But despite the "University" in its name, Wesleyan doesn't offer regular graduate degrees in the social sciences, including econ--so this doesn't constitute an exception with respect to Gina's question. Gil
[PEN-L:3238] Re: Classics
A follow-up to my earlier comment: I recently went to a conference where I met with several of my predecessor graduate students at Colorado from 10 years ago. Their course work differed radically (I think "radically" here is the right word) from my own course work. Their work included a history of thought course and macro with an emphasis on rational expectations. I think the history of thought course was killed about six or seven years ago. Finally, may I close by saying that one of my professors once conceded while slightly inebriated, "At Colorado, we've done away with thought." Steven Zahniser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3239] Re: the classics.
Gina asks: Perhaps this isn't the best crew to ask this question of, but does anyone know if reading the works of the classical economists is -required- in any mainstream, orthodox programs in the country? Typically, no.
[PEN-L:3240] Re: Classics
Date sent: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:01:56 -0800 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: ZAHNISER STEVEN SCOTT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:3238] Re: Classics A follow-up to my earlier comment: I recently went to a conference where I met with several of my predecessor graduate students at Colorado from 10 years ago. Their course work differed radically (I think "radically" here is the right word) from my own course work. Their work included a history of thought course and macro with an emphasis on rational expectations. I think the history of thought course was killed about six or seven years ago. Finally, may I close by saying that one of my professors once conceded while slightly inebriated, "At Colorado, we've done away with thought." Steven Zahniser [EMAIL PROTECTED] One of the main reasons for doing away with the "classics"--which was done long ago in most cases--is once one reads the originals, many of the caricatures are exposed. I do not allow my students to quote a quote of an original. They must, when quoting an original source, give the references in the original. I cannot count the number of polemical articles--mostly from the likes of the Chicago School--that quote Marx and the quote given is from some right wing hack's quote of Marx; and when you look at the Bibliography there is no reference to original works of Marx given. We have a part-time teacher here who is a rabid Libertarian. He once walked into my office and pronounced "Marx was all wrong". So I inquired "about what" and he said "everything". So I said, well the collected works of Marx and Engels comprise 55 volumes with approximately 300 to 400 pages in each volume; in these volumes are all sorts of works on history, the nature of the state, higher-order mathematics, the colonial question, the inner logic and dynamics of capitalism, poetry, dialectical processes in nature etc. So what exactly was Marx wrong about? He got that icy stare that most dogmatic types get when someone intrudes in their fanatical fantasy with elementary logic and said "just like I said everything." So I asked him what he had read of Marx and he said "part of the first volume of Capital"; he also claims to be a specialist in economic thought. I asked how he could dismiss even Capital without having read all of it and he said "I read enough plus I've read the critics". So then I asked which critics and how do you know that what you got from the critics was not simple caricatures and contrived syllogisms?" By this time elementary logic and critical thinking was taking its toll. I finished with the comment that he was a f---ing disgrace to the human race along with being a disgrace to the teaching profession and that I would give him a lesson in that which he and his neo- classical buddies purport doesn't exist--power; in other words I would exercise seniority and take any classes he might be scheduled to teach as I considered inflicting someone with his narrow and dogmatic attitude on the students to be a form of abuse of students. Leftist should take due care to ensure that the origninal thoughts--not caricatures--of those schools with which they disagree are properly taught with the same applying to other positions on the grand spectrum of paradigms and opinion. Let all ideas contend; let a hundred flowers bloom; let the students see the originals not the simple-minded caricatures--left, right, center or whatever. How anyone could obtain a Ph.D. in Economics without serious reading of Marx, Marshall, Smith, Walras, Knight, Bohm-Bawerk, Schumpeter, the Mills, etc etc.--in the originals--is beyond me. That is why the Nobel Prize in "Economic Science" with winners like wannabe Gary Becker should be entitled the "Nobel Prize in Contrived Syllogisms, Cooked Data, Single-Sourcing, Elegantly Quantified Sophistry and Ultra-Right Ideology Masquerading as Empirically Derived and Verifyable Models and Bourgeois Sycophancy in Economics". Jim Craven *---** * James Craven * "All things have inner meaning and * * Dept of Economics* form and power." (Hopi) * * Clark College* "In this world the unseen has power." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (Apache) * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * "Be satisfied with needs instead of * * (360) 992-2283 * wants." (Tenton Lakota) * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * "The Great Spirit is always angry * * * with men who shed innocent blood."* * * (Iowa)* * * "It is no longer good enough
[PEN-L:3241] Re: the classics.
The literary classics have been replaced by classic comics. Economic classics have been replaced by neo-classical comics. Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:3242] evolutionary ecology in anthropology
Here's something you might like, recently submitted to Trends in Evolutionary Ecology (TREE). Comments welcome. Lisa *** The Behavioral Ecology of Modern Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution Kristen Hawkes James F. O'Connell Lisa Rogers Department of Anthropology University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 Key Words: hunter-gatherers, human evolution, foraging, division of labor, sexes, sharing, hunting, menopause, life histories, fertility Recent work on the fitness related tradeoffs people face when foraging for a living demonstrates key relationships between ecology and behavior with important implications for human evolution. Problems posed by the temporal and spatial distribution, capture costs, morphology and composition, processing requirements and economic defendability of locally occuring plants and animals engage direct time and energy tradeoffs. These have associated mating and parenting costs and benefits and often result in notable conflicts of interests among individuals. Foraging tradeoffs are linked not only to changes in subsistence practices, but also to patterns of cooperation and sharing, the sexual division of labor, the role of hunting in human evolution, and distinctive features of human life histories including long post-menopausal lifespans. The idea that present-day hunter-gatherers are an important source of information about human evolution has long been disputed. Currently, many anthropologists see modern foragers as part of a world-wide, dispossessed "rural proletariat" with no special connections to the distant past. That view is widely regarded as the informed alternative to the popular myth that contemporary foragers are isolated, unchanged relics of the Pleistocene, a proposition falsified by all of world (pre)history.1 Modern human anatomy does not evolve until the last 100,000 years; modern behavioral capacities are reflected in the archaeology only after 50,000 years ago; key features of recent hunter-gatherer technology and subsistence appear no more than 20,000 years ago, in some instances even later.2 All parts of every occupied continent have witnessed massive changes in the distribution of human populations since the onset of modern climatic conditions 8-10,000 years ago. Migration, war, trade, and conquest have been pervasive. Many contemporary hunters have recent farming or herding ancestors. In light of this historical complexity, recent global economic and political processes are widely seen to determine patterns of culture, including those of modern hunters. There is however a baby in the bath of "unchanged primitives." When modern people subsist on wild (i.e., non-domesticated) resources, they encounter problems in daily life broadly comparable to those confronted by any hominid forager, no matter how ancient. These problems, the constraints they pose, and the solutions adopted are all open to direct observation. By abandoning the conventional social science concern with cultural "systems," investigators can take advantage of this opportunity to focus instead on the daily behavior of individuals, specifically on the effects of age, sex, and immediate ecological circumstances on the fitness-related tradeoffs they face. Modern actors and environments differ from those of the past, and represent only a fraction of some larger possible range of variation. But each case offers a chance to see whether critical variables are related in predictable ways.3 If so, results provide a basis for hypotheses about situations in which those variables take different values, including some outside the modern range. Which resources? Much research undertaken from this perspective has been directed at questions of resource choice.1-2,4-7 In general, foragers have been found to select prey that maximize mean rates of nutrient acquisition. They routinely bypass resources yielding relatively low post-encounter rates when they do better seaching for more profitable items, but take a broader array of prey when encounters with high ranked resources are rare. Patterns in the archaeological record of resource choice also reflect this tradeoff between search and handling.8 After the last glacial maximum, many human populations began to exploit locally abundant, nutrient-rich but previously unused resources, notably seeds and other plant foods that require extensive processing to improve digestibility or remove toxic components. This "broad spectrum revolution" probably marks a decline in encounter rates for higher ranked prey, which is in turn the result of terminal Pleistocene climatic change, human population increase, human-induced habitat change, or some combination thereof.2 The use of resources requiring substantial handling also had implications for initial experiments in domestication. Broad spectrum foragers spend more time
[PEN-L:3243] Re: Classics
At 4:01 PM 3/4/96, ZAHNISER STEVEN SCOTT wrote: Finally, may I close by saying that one of my professors once conceded while slightly inebriated, "At Colorado, we've done away with thought." It seems to me the U.S. bourgeoisie - can I use that word? - has botched its inheritance from earlier European bourg's. High culture has turned into a cross between a mausoleum and an upscale marketing vehicle, and intellectual life is in terrible shape, like thought at Colorado. Yale is run like a mixed stock and bond portfolio. It ain't Marx's bourgeoisie. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:3244] evolutionary ecology in anthropology [oops]
Here's something you might like, recently submitted to Trends in Evolutionary Ecology (TREE). Comments welcome. Lisa *** Oops, that was supposed to go to Terry. If anybody wants the rest of it, let me know, I'll send it out. There are only two more parts, including references. Lisa
[PEN-L:3245] Re: Classics
I've heard that the UofU has a decent economics department, and I guess this is evidence. I'm taking a course in the History of Economic Thought right now, and enjoying it very much. It is part of a 3-quarter series, and I think it's required for PhD, but I'm just picking up a minor in economics, taking graduate classes to complete the number of credits. I thought I was just going to do some economic methods, which have application in evolution and human behavior, but then I digressed. Something like I'm doing right now. The text for this quarter is E.K.Hunt 1992 _History of Economic Thought: a critical perspective_ HarperCollins The instructor is also E.K.Hunt, who is presently the department chair. He's really into the history of ideas and social theory generally. He was first ABD in philosophy, then switched to economics. The book covers classic political economy and a lot of other ground besides, from the origins of capitalism and the feudal-capital transition, through Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, rationalistic subjectivism, utilitarianism, Marx, Walras, neoclassicals, Veblen, Hobson, welfare economics, Keynes and more. What I like is that it's all from a leftish view and that it's not in the form of disembodied ideas. Everything is presented in context of the times and the political agenda involved. I'm glad I knew some Marx first, but now this is adding a lot of perspective on Marx, in terms of the context in which he was operating, the on-going debates in which he was participating, the critiques of the classics and his contemporaries that he was presenting, and the alternative analyses he offered. Still no economist, and never will be, but more informed than I was last month, Lisa p.s. I wrote summaries of 12 of the 19 chapters, and can email one or more to anyone who might find them useful.
[PEN-L:3246] Classics
At Manitoba we require history of thought at the honours level as a requirement for an honours degree. Anyone entering the PhD program is required either to have honours level history or thought and at least one course in economic history, or if the student doesn't have them on entry, must take one full year of history of thought and one full year of economic history. We, therefore, offer history of thought at the 4th year honours level every year, and a graduate course every other year. But then we also teach graduate and honours level theory courses in alternative macro (post Keynesian and Marxian) and alternative micro (Marxian and Neo-Ricardian). In all these various courses, the classics are read in the original. Paul Phillips, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:3247] Re: Classics
I have to chime in with a comment re Colorado: When I was there (from 1974 to 1977), History of Thought was a required course for all Ph.D. students; we even had to take preliminary exams in thought. I was lucky enough to take it when Boulding was teaching it. And yes, we read quite a bit of Smith--also Ricardo and Marx. One interesting bit of trivia: Boulding's final exam in Thought had two portions, a take home that asked to trace the history of surplus until 1848 or after 1848. The in class portion was 100 matching questions! The questions were of this variety: Psychic income F. Fetter. Boulding thought this was important... Really. Bill Brown University of Alaska [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3248] Re: unions/abortion/Buchanan
Three things which strike me about Buchanan are this: His opening of the economic Pandora's box has set Republicans on their ear because he has refused to organize his political campaign around the red herring of abortion. The Republicans don't actually give a damn about abortion, but it has provided an emotive issue which attracts broad sections of middle and working class people who might never otherwise vote Republican. Two, Buchanan has addressed the weakest issue in the Democratic Party -- the economy. However, one thing which no one has mentioned so far is the possible direct tie between decreasing security, wages, and benefits in the job population as a whole and the steady decrease of unionism. During the sixties and early seventies many corporations -- for instance IBM -- publically stated their policy of providing high enough benefits, wages and security to keep unions out of their corporations. As unions increasingly weaken in the United States, many of these same corporations feel free to decrease the level of pay and bennies. Buchanan is speaking to that section of the American working class who had come to expect the benefits of unionism without realizing (in many cases) where the organization and strength of unions actually came from. Certainly there is a lot more to the current jobs/globilization/corporate responsibility argument than this one factor -- but the decrease of unionism has certainly contributed to the current situation and it is something I have not heard addressed. Three, Ross Perot didn't win the last election, Buchanan may not win this election, but I think the increasing popularity of dangerous conservatives is a sign that a leader from the far right may win an election in the next decade. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
