[PEN-L:6798] censorship

[Michael Perelman]

I do not consider the question about Shawgi to be censorship.  I
personally do not find his postings objectionable.  On subjects that do
not interest me I can easily delete them.

Some people do pay by the message.  Others pay for the time that they
spend on the net.

My interest here is not in silencing Shawgi.  If he were someone who was
just trying to tweak us, I would think that he should use his time
better.

Many people did write me on and off pen-l about being offended by
Shawgi.  Very few people expressed a problem with his political stance,
except in the case of Israel and the charge of being a Stalinist.

I did not like and still do not like the way people attacked him in the
past.  I expressed my concern about that behavior.

Both Bill and Susan say that they found his posting, at least
occassionally, useful.

I suspect, and I had mentioned this to Shawgi, that his format might be
better suited to a Usenet group.

Now to the question of censorship.  Here some of us have different
philosophies.  I regard pen-l as a private space for people to do
progressive politics.  By that standard, Shawgi belongs.  I also try to
do what I can to make it a productive and enjoyable space.  I would not
want us to get into the diatribes of the marxism list.  Nor would I like
to see tedious debates with conservatives rehashing old ideas that we
have all heard.  Finally, I hope, as we all do, that we have seen the
end of the person hawking stuff on pen-l.

In recent days, more and more of our time was taken up by Shawgi.  In
that sense, his presence was counterproductive.  His only other offense
might be the time and money taken up by his posting for those that pay.

Shawgi told me that he would leave if I insisted, but wanted me to
reconsider.  I do not want to get us tied up in endless debates about
who and who should not be here and whom we will and will not tolerate. 
I am going to wait for three days to respond to Shawgi.

One final note: PLEASE, whether you do or do not appreciate his
contributions to pen-l, do not taunt him -- or anyone else.


-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
 
Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6797] Re: The continuing saga

[Bill Moore]

On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Michael Perelman wrote:

> So far two people have spoken up for the usefulness of Shawgi's postings,
> several for freedom of speech, and several notes of appreciation, both
> public and private.

Suppose only *one* did, or suppose *no* one did; would censorship be less 
palatable?  Oikos v. Nomos?
 
> I wish that I knew a better way to handle such matters.  Bill Mitchell was
> correct to point out one factor, that most of his posts concerned the
> world outside of the U.S.  Maybe lurkers outside of North America found
> his material more useful than some others did.

As my 91-year-old-male-parental-unit (labor organizer in Detroit in the 
'30's and '40's with the bullet-scars-as-evidence) still says, "Shoot me, 
but don't 'shush' me."  Shades of Reagan's 1984...
==
  _   /!   |   Internet:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  \|o.o Bill the Cat   |Voice:  303/399-6726 | FAX:  303/333-9009
 ==(_^_)==  ACK!  THPFFTT! | Copyright USA 1996   All Rights Reserved
 U |Bill Moore
   |   All opinions are solely this writer's.
==

[PEN-L:6796] Re: The continuing saga

[SHAWGI TELL]

On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Michael Perelman wrote:

> So far two people have spoken up for the usefulness of Shawgi's postings,
> several for freedom of speech, and several notes of appreciation, both
> public and private.
> 
> I wish that I knew a better way to handle such matters.  Bill Mitchell was
> correct to point out one factor, that most of his posts concerned the
> world outside of the U.S.  Maybe lurkers outside of North America found
> his material more useful than some others did.
> 


But this is not the case.  Many of my posts are about the U.S.  Many of 
my posts are about North America.  Also, it is extremely strange for 
progressives to be concerned only with U.S.-specific issues, especially 
when there is so much talk about the global nature of capitalism.

> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> 
> Tel. 916-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6795] Re: pen-l

[SHAWGI TELL]

On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Bill Moore wrote:

> Shawgi, if indeed that is your name (both revolutionaries and reactionaries
> seek personal anonymity, the better to conceal their goals), I had not 
> seen your above-captioned post when I responded to M. Perelman's notice 
> of "invitation to cease-and-desist" because some folks find you tedious.
> 
> Indeed, I find some of your posts tedious, boring, and irrelevant; but also
> -- infrequently, I note -- relevant to the lives of my Canadian friends.  
> So I say to you:  Illegitimati non carborundum!
> ==
>   _   /!   |   Internet:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   \|o.o Bill the Cat   |Voice:  303/399-6726 | FAX: 303/333-9009
>  ==(_^_)==  ACK!  THPFFTT! | Copyright USA 1996   All Rights Reserved
>  U |Bill Moore
>|   All opinions are solely this writer's.
> ---|--
> Merlin the Wizard says, "Few, if any, 'progressives' need worry about 
> e-mailbox overflow."  
> ==
> 
> 

Bill, it is a positive thing that you do your own thinking and reach your 
own conclusions.  I appreciate your sincerity and support.  For me, it is 
extremely retrogressive to turn people's beliefs into law and order issues.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6794] Re: pen-l

[Bill Moore]

Shawgi, if indeed that is your name (both revolutionaries and reactionaries
seek personal anonymity, the better to conceal their goals), I had not 
seen your above-captioned post when I responded to M. Perelman's notice 
of "invitation to cease-and-desist" because some folks find you tedious.

Indeed, I find some of your posts tedious, boring, and irrelevant; but also
-- infrequently, I note -- relevant to the lives of my Canadian friends.  
So I say to you:  Illegitimati non carborundum!
==
  _   /!   |   Internet:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  \|o.o Bill the Cat   |Voice:  303/399-6726 | FAX: 303/333-9009
 ==(_^_)==  ACK!  THPFFTT! | Copyright USA 1996   All Rights Reserved
 U |Bill Moore
   |   All opinions are solely this writer's.
---|--
Merlin the Wizard says, "Few, if any, 'progressives' need worry about 
e-mailbox overflow."  
==

[PEN-L:6793] The continuing saga

[Michael Perelman]

So far two people have spoken up for the usefulness of Shawgi's postings,
several for freedom of speech, and several notes of appreciation, both
public and private.

I wish that I knew a better way to handle such matters.  Bill Mitchell was
correct to point out one factor, that most of his posts concerned the
world outside of the U.S.  Maybe lurkers outside of North America found
his material more useful than some others did.


 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6792] Re: stalinism?

[Michael Perelman]

I never understood her to be accusing me of stalinism.  Her posting came
after I had written about Shawgi.  I just had not read it.

My reference to Stalinism was meant to be humerous.  I guess that I will
have to re-enroll in the Bobdole school of humor.

Gerald Levy wrote:
> 
> Re Susan Fleck's comments:
> 
> To accuse Michael Perelman of Stalinism re the Shawgi Affair is to abuse
> the term Stalinism and devoid it of its historical and political meaning.
> 
> Jerry

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
 
Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6791] Re: pen-l

[Walter Daum]

I for one would object to Shawgi Tell's postings being barred from PEN-L.

I don't read them all; very few, in fact. And much of the information
can be picked up from other left sources. But not all. There is hardly
anyone else, for example, keeping us posted on the pending Toronto
shutdown, a subject which ought to be of interest to progressive
economists.

Walter Daum

[PEN-L:6790] Re: susan fleck on Shawgi

[Bill Moore]

As a relative newcomer, and possibly perceived as an interloper, I'll just
register the following opinion:  In the primary bastion of capitalism, we 
still have the First Amendment, even for the terminally dull and tedious.

In the land of the terminally dull and tedious, there is a lot of room 
for views that become boring; and Tell's are IMNSHO worth a forum.  If 
not here, then where?  If not now, then when?  To the same extent that I 
objected to the "expulsion" of the lawyer at the Public Utility 
Commission of Texas (full disclosure:  a former employer of mine) who 
displayed -- at times -- a wholly conventional view of the economic 
milieu we all confront, I also object to the muzzling of Tell.

Bill the Cat in the Next On the List To Be Expelled Hat

[PEN-L:6789] Re: postings on penl

[bill mitchell]

Susan wrote among other things.
>
>Shutting off Tell is being as Stalinist
>as a Stalinist.  Requesting a self-imposed limit on postings/day for all
>members may be a more civil way to address the problem,(unless the
>anarchists among us decide to oppose such a rule!)
>
>
Count me among the international anarchists. No rules. all this stuff about
pressing the delete key taking a lot of time is just plain. I can
appreciate people complaining if their mail box is of a finite size. but how
many are in that position? further, the titles he/she puts on his/her posts are
very indicative. the screening process is very easy in fact.

i do agree with doug though that shawgi tell is a strange characterone-way
communication doesn't at all seem to be what a progressive and active left
movement should be aspiring to. i like to talk to people not at them.

but susan also made a telling point. I have often complained about the
americo-centricity of this list. and sometimes i have tried to inject a world
view. usually, it never runs, b/c the list is hammering away at a discussion of
what toothpaste bill clinton is using or somesuch. or what the fed is doing. 

it is terribly alienating being an australian person on this list at times.
and this alienation reflects in the lack of communication b/tw the americans
and the ROW.

kind regards
bill
--

 ##   William F. Mitchell
   ###    Head of Economics Department
 #University of Newcastle
      New South Wales, Australia
   ###*   E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ###Phone: +61 49 215065
#  ## ###+61 49 215027
  Fax:   +61 49 216919  
  ##  http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html   

"only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned
and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money."
(Cree Indian saying...circa 1909)

[PEN-L:6788] Re: pen-l

[SHAWGI TELL]

On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Michael Perelman wrote:

> Shawgi, based on a consensus, I am going to ask you to stop posting to
> pen-l.
> 
> I am sorry.  I hope that you understand.
> -- 
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> 
> Tel. 916-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Hi Michael, I don't understand your position/decision.  Among other 
things, I thought PEN-L was a democratic forum.

You know as well as I do that many PEN-L subscribers post frequently.

You also know that none of my posts attack or criticize any PEN-L subscriber.

You know that my posts are PEN-L relevant.

Above all, you know that what many consider to be attempts at 
"discussion" are nothing more than extremely hostile and/or 
confrontational efforts.  I am extremely pro-discussion and pro-inquiry 
when the next person is pro-discussion and pro-inquiry.  This is 
precisely why you have had to remind some to stop personal attacks.
At any rate, the PEN-L record will indicate that I have engaged in
exchanges with other PEN-L subscribers.  

Every PEN-L subscriber who wants to initiate a pro-discussion and 
pro-inquiry thread with me can expect an enthusiastic response.

You have not supplied a plausible justification for ejecting me, in my 
estimation.  What, for example, is the consensus you speak of based on?  
The views of the vast majority of PEN-Lers or a fraction of them?  I 
think here it is important to base decisions on just principles.

Please consider my position seriously.  If you feel that I am way off the 
mark, then I will unsubscribe.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6787] stalinism?

[Gerald Levy]

Re Susan Fleck's comments:

To accuse Michael Perelman of Stalinism re the Shawgi Affair is to abuse
the term Stalinism and devoid it of its historical and political meaning.

Jerry

[PEN-L:6786] Re: susan fleck on Shawgi

[Doug Henwood]

At 10:10 AM 10/19/96, Michael Perelman wrote:

>I just saw Susan's note.  I had hesitated to take action with Shawgi
>because I suspected that some people would feel like her.
>
>I did not act on the account of Stalinism.  In fact, I agree with most of
>what Shawgi wrote.  I had received positive feedback in person from Sid's
>postings, which I generally find to be more informative than Shawgi's.
>
>A reluctant Stalinist?

Sid's stuff is well-chosen and very useful, and Patrick Bond, whom Susan
also mentioned, is one of the most important writers on Southern Africa
around. Shawgi just ships dead pronunciamenti in great volume. Like I said,
I wouldn't mind the screeds if he'd actually engaged PEN-L members in
conversation, but he hasn't. This is supposed to be conversation among
people who mostly would otherwise not meet - not agitprop, right?

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: 

[PEN-L:6785] Re: S. Tell's postings on penl

[Sandy Thompson]

As I understand it, PEN-L is an interactive DISCUSSION list, NOT a
unilateral BROADCAST site.

I have no problem if someone who broadcasts, as does S. Tell, wants to
inform us where her/his work can be found on the WWW every now and then for
those few who might find this stuff interesting and unavailable elsewhere,
but it is pretty clear from her/his uniform lack of response to the several
PEN-Lers who have responded to her/his posts that S. Tell is (mis)using
PEN-L as a broadcast site, which is inappropriate, IMHO.  For my part, I
generally just send these back directly to her/him, as I do with snail mail
for which I have no need.

Sandy Thompson

___

Alexander M. Thompson III
Professor of Economics & Dean of Studies
Vassar College Box 5
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601


e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

   tel: (914) 437-5257
   fax: (914) 437-7060

[PEN-L:6784] Re: Poverty query

[albelda]

An excellent discussion of the US's poverty measure and alternative measures
see Constance Citro and Robert Michael, editors _Measuring Poverty: A New
Approach_  (Nat'l Academy Press, 1995) it is the report from a panel set up
through the National  Acadamy of Science to examine the current measure and
propose a new one.

the current measure is based on a 1955 budget study of all families, which
found that 1/3 of income was spent on food.  The food budget for a destitute
family (also from 1955) was used to calculate the 1965 measure of $3,000 for a
family of 4 (food budget x 3) and has been indexed to inflation since.  In
1965, the poverty income threshold was 50% of the median income for a family of
four.  

Randy Albelda

[PEN-L:6783] susan fleck on Shawgi

[Michael Perelman]

I just saw Susan's note.  I had hesitated to take action with Shawgi
because I suspected that some people would feel like her.

I did not act on the account of Stalinism.  In fact, I agree with most of
what Shawgi wrote.  I had received positive feedback in person from Sid's
postings, which I generally find to be more informative than Shawgi's.

A reluctant Stalinist?
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6782] shawgi tell

[Michael Perelman]

Given the large number of communications that I have received, both
privately and on pen-l, I have asked Shawgi to discontinue posting to
pen-l.

I do not take these decisions lightly.  I realize that we are walking a
fine line, but I continue to hold to the idea that pen-l is a space that
should be as useful and enjoyable as possible.

Shawgi is the first person (of 5 I think so far) of those who have been
excluded, whose political views pretty well fit with that of pen-l, even
though his style might have been out of synch.

I hope that I have made the right decision.
 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6781] postings on penl

[susan fleck]

dear comrades,

i seem to have a different opinion from a few of you in regards to postings
by S. Tell.  I enjoy reading about strike activity, south korean progressive
movement, NATO politics, and some of the other things that S. Tell
posts.  Despite the use of certain adjectives that highlight
his (her?) ideological leanings, I find it refreshing to get some
international perspective on issues of pressing concern for progressives
at a global level.  D. Schniad also shares some interesting postings, which
I may skim, read, or delete at my leisure as well.  If it weren't for the likes
of Tell, Schniad, and Bond, we wouldn't get any international news
from a left perspective.  I am frustrated at some of the more vocal
penl participants for not appreciating the
kernels of information that come with the anti-imperialist rhetoric.
I have neither time nore inclination to count the number of postings made
by the critics of Tell, but there are surely days that their own postings
outnumber those of Tell.


i assume there are lurkers from countries beyond the US who share the
strong anti-imperialist (if not the stalinist) tendencies expressed in
Tell's post, and I would not want to stifle a voice that still
reverbrates among many who do not share the US-eye's view of the world
that many of penl posters do.  Shutting off Tell is being as Stalinist
as a Stalinist.  Requesting a self-imposed limit on postings/day for all
members may be a more civil way to address the problem,(unless the
anarchists among us decide to oppose such a rule!)

in the struggle,
susan fleck
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6780] Target The System, Not Policy

[SHAWGI TELL]

The political agenda set by the rich focuses attention on one policy or
another, but never proposes that we examine the whole system--its economy,
politics, culture, etc. Most people have experience with the fact that if
you try to put a bandaid on a problem that requires surgery, you will
suffer severe consequences. The political affairs of the country are no
different.
Fundamental problems need fundamental solutions. Instead, people are
drawn into choosing sides for or against one policy or another, whether tax
cuts, more jails, etc. There is "debate" about how fast to pay off the
debt, but no discussion on rejecting this anti-people solution. What about
other alternatives to the current economic situation? What about debating
the choice of changing the direction of the economy, to one that meets the
needs of the people? What about seriously discussing solutions to racism
and inequality, or the danger of war, its sources and solutions? These
fundamental problems are absent from the agenda.
Pre-set agendas also serve to block rational discussion. People are
pushed to take sides even before everyone is fully informed and the issue
is fully discussed and elaborated. For example, both Clinton and Dole
emphasize that they will be "tough" on crime. The US already has, by far,
one of the highest incarceration rates in the world--1.6 million people by
the end of 1995. What kind of society produces so much crime? Why is the
only answer more punishment? Problems like drug addiction are turned into
law and order issues, with youth being made to pay the price. But
discussion of this reality is blocked, through the pre-set agenda, by and
for the rich.
The ruling class can not solve the social problems which concern the
people, whether these are problems of racism, poverty, the environment, the
danger of war, etc. Creating a new society is a job for the people. One
part of this struggle is organizing to set the political agenda and insure
there is serious discussion of it.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6779] Re: humor

[jtreacy]

Treacy: And then we have:
Summation sign IOU'S=Summation sign UOME'S

If you both sides of the equation by O and U you are left with:

Summation sign I's=Summation sign ME's

[EMAIL PROTECTED] copyrighted


On Sat, 19 Oct 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> (y)M*W=(y)D
> M=money
> W=work
> D=debt
> y=percentage of income spent on consumption 
> If one cancels the y out, then all the money earned at work goes to debt.  If
> one does not work, one does not incur debt. (HA)
> 
> maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

[PEN-L:6778] Re: Trial Of 440 Students To Begin Shortly

[MScoleman]

I hit the delete key every time I see Shawgi's messages, primarily because I
hate being preached to -- even if there is a vague chance I might agree with
the message.  However, It is getting very, very tiring having to monitor my
entire message list for possible shawgi's before reading said list,  This is
especially true since my time is incredibly limited right now.  How about, we
all tie up Shawgi's mail box with static?  Make this problem a two way
street?

maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6777] spam +

[Gerald Levy]

Doug Henwood wrote:

> At 10:14 AM 10/19/96, SHAWGI TELL wrote:
> ..yet another diatribe.
> Shawgi Tell, if you made some effort to converse with the people on the
> lists you post these screeds to I might feel a little different about them.
> But as it is, it just reads like spams. One tedious pronunciamento after
> another. Please stop it.

I agree *completely* -- and I will add here that having to constantly
delete Shawgi's spam is both time-consuming and annoying.

So ... Doug: how do you define and measure surplus value?

Your pest,

Jerry

[PEN-L:6776] Re: humor

[MScoleman]

(y)M*W=(y)D
M=money
W=work
D=debt
y=percentage of income spent on consumption 
If one cancels the y out, then all the money earned at work goes to debt.  If
one does not work, one does not incur debt. (HA)

maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6775] Re: Trial Of 440 Students To Begin Shortly

[Doug Henwood]

At 10:14 AM 10/19/96, SHAWGI TELL wrote:

...yet another diatribe.

Shawgi Tell, if you made some effort to converse with the people on the
lists you post these screeds to I might feel a little different about them.
But as it is, it just reads like spams. One tedious pronunciamento after
another. Please stop it.

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: 

[PEN-L:6774] Re: Marginal Tax Rates

[MScoleman]

Just to add a couple of points to Max's about the regressivity of the tax
code:

sales tax is a flat tax, and the poor pay more than the wealthy in two ways
on sales tax:

1.  the poor consume all of their income, and, up to relatively high levels
of income, 'dissave' (using a keynesian term) at a much higher rate than the
well-to-do.  In actuality, this is three effects: (a) the poor pay a much
higher percentage of their income in sales tax.  (b) they consume all of
their income, as opposed to the more well-to-do who save a percentage of
their income.  hence, they pay sales tax with all their income as opposed to
the wealthy who pay sales tax with only a part of their income.  (c) until
incomes get over the $70-80,000 range, almost all families carry constant
credit card balances.  The rich pay less for goods simply by paying off their
cards or paying cash.

2.  the wealthy have more options.  they can afford to shop in states where
there is less sales tax.  For example, not to long ago Tiffany's was
investigated for sending jewelry over state lines to New Jersey from New York
to avoid high sales taxes in New York.  How many poor and working people that
you know of shop at Tiffany's? 

maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:6773] Trial Of 440 Students To Begin Shortly

[SHAWGI TELL]

The news media in south Korea stated Monday that the trials of 440
college students arrested in August would begin shortly. The media
spoke of "tight court security that has been substantially beefed
up in five separate courtrooms." Tension is said to be extremely
high as there is growing support for the students who were arrested
while attempting to hold a pro-unification rally. Adding to the
outrage over the arrests under the fascist "National Security Law"
are the persistent reports of sexual abuse of the arrested students
by security officials. Many of the indicted students are female,
and parents and others are very concerned for their safety.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]