[PEN-L:8838] *HISTORIC CITIZENS PANEL* on Telecomm Democracy--April '97 (fwd)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 04:48:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: *HISTORIC CITIZENS PANEL* on "Telecomm Democracy"--April '97 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Loka Alert 4:2 (March 5, 1997) PLEASE REPOST WIDELY (WHERE APPROPRIATE) From Dick Sclove, The Loka Institute: Friends Colleagues: The Loka Institute invites you to attend an **HISTORIC, FIRST-TIME U.S. CITIZENS' PANEL** Topic: "TELECOMMUNICATIONS THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY" When: April 2-4, 1997 Where: At Tufts University (near Boston) What: This event will be the first-ever U.S. emulation of a European-style "consensus conference"--a process for involving everyday citizens in policy deliberations on complex, controversial topics. The topic, "Telecommunica- tions the Future of Democracy," has profound implications for all aspects of American society. Vital national and state-level policy decisons are pending. But to date the voices of ordinary citizens--including especially those who do not currently use computers or the Internet--have not been heard! On April 2nd-3rd a diverse group of non-expert citizens (residents of the greater Boston area) will cross-examine noted experts and stakeholders on telecommuni- cations policy in an open public forum. The next day (April 4th) the lay panelists will announce their own findings and policy recommendations at a national press conference (also open to the public). Scheduled to attend, among others, is U.S. Congressman Ed Markey, a leading U.S. legislator on telecommunications policy. Citizens' Panels represent one promising antidote to America's democratic malaise. All are welcome to attend this historic event. SPONSORING OR COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS for the pilot Citizens' Panel: o The Loka Institute, Amherst, Mass. o The EPIIC Program (Education for Public Inquiry International Citizenship) at Tufts University o The Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities Public Policy o MIT's _Technology Review_ magazine o University of Massachusetts Extension o The Jefferson Center, Minneapolis, MN Supplementary financial support has been provided by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation. LOGISTICAL DETAILS: The times and locations for the pilot Citizen's Panel on "Telecommunications the Future of Democracy": PUBLIC HEARINGS: When: APRIL 2ND from 9 AM TO NOON and from 1 PM TO 3:30 PM (Lay panel listens to diverse experts testify) APRIL 3RD from 9 AM TO NOON (Lay panel freely cross-examines previous day's expert witnesses. This is dramatic!!) Where: In the HILLEL CENTER of TUFTS UNIVERSITY on PACKARD AVENUE, MEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS (NEAR BOSTON). LAY PANEL'S CULMINATING NATIONAL PRESS CONFERENCE (open to the public): When: APRIL 4th at 11 AM (Lay panel announces their own findings and policy recommendations. Also dramatic!!) Where: In the COOLIDGE ROOM OF BALLOU HALL, again on the TUFTS UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS, MEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION on logistical details or on the organization of this event, contact: Kerri SherlockLaura Reed Project Assistant Project Manager Tel. +(617)628-5000 ext. 2045 Tel. +(617)926-3431 Fax +(617)627-3940 Fax +(617)926-6117 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FOR ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION on Citizen Panels and on European experience with consensus conferences, see RICHARD SCLOVE'S article "TOWN MEETINGS ON TECHNOLOGY" in the JULY 1996 issue of TECHNOLOGY REVIEW magazine (vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 24-31). This article is also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.amherst.edu/~loka/panel/panel.htm. For general background information on democratizing science and technology, see Richard Sclove's book, _DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY_ (further information at the end of this post). Or CONTACT THE LOKA INSTITUTE DIRECTLY: The Loka Institute Tel. +(413) 582-5860 Fax +(413) 582-5811 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] World Wide Web:
[PEN-L:8837] wealth distribution query
Does anyone have numbers on how the distribution of wealth has changed in the U.S. during the last 20 years or so? Could you give me such numbers ASAP, please? (it's also useful to break them down by types of wealth, to exclude home ownership.) are the latest numbers from 1989 or 1991? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:8836] Central City Malls
Hi, First, please forgive the multiple postings. I'm posting this to several lists in the hope of getting quick and useful responses. A local reporter is doing an article on downtown, central-city malls. This is not from some disinterested standpoint: ground breaking for a large mall in Providence (Providence Place) is scheduled for this spring. The reporter interviewed me and asked two questions I could not answer, and I'd really appreciate your help in answering them. First, what do the business plans of these malls typically look like. For example, what return on investment do developers plan on? Also, is there a difference, either in cost or planning strategy, between suburban and central city malls? Are there any figures readily available on a) the overall financial package for specific malls or malls in general and b) the public subsidy portion of such malls. Second, are there any good studies of mall impacts? I have a student who's reviewing evaluations of enterprise zones, and she's finding they're pretty lousy. Is there a parallel literature on central-city malls, and is it any better? Please reply to me directly. Your help will be most appreciated. Thanks very much. Marsh Feldman Phone: 401/874-5953 Community Planning, 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/874-5511 The University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815
[PEN-L:8835] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997 __The National Association of Purchasing Management reports that growth in the manufacturing sector was buoyed in February by gains in new orders and production, and prices paid for raw materials jumped for the third month in a row On the inflation front, prices paid by manufacturers continued to rise, and supplier delivery times slowed, a development that bears watching by the inflation-wary Federal Reserve, money market economists said. Manufacturing employment, on the other hand, declined for the third consecutive month, leading some economists to revise their expectations for February's employment report (Daily Labor Report, page A-5). __Activity among American manufacturers improved in February from a month earlier, as orders and production accelerated (New York Times, page B8). __The manufacturing sector is sending a few inflationary signals but they are still fuzzy and faint (Wall Street Journal, page A2). __Total personal income increased 0.3 percent in January, while consumer spending climbed 0.7 percent, the Commerce Department reports. The January increase in spending is the largest since a 0.9 percent gain in October Wages and salaries-- which account for about 57 percent of total income -- edged down 0.1 percent in January after increasing 0.1 percent in December. A January decline in average weekly hours more than offset advances in employment and average hourly earnings (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). __The Commerce Department said that January's increase in income was inflated by special factors, including cost-of-living increases for federal programs like Social Security and pay increases for civilian and military personnel. Without the special factors, personal income increased less than one-tenth of 1 percent (New York Times, page B8). Construction spending rose 0.4 percent in January, not quite reversing the previous month's decline, the Commerce Department reports. Gains came from industrial and office construction, along with construction of apartment buildings (Daily Labor Report, page A-5). President Clinton gave his aides the go-ahead to try to forge a deal with Congress to reduce cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and other benefit programs, White House officials said. The officials said the administration had not decided on a specific proposal, but would start consulting with members of Congress from both parties, as well as with outside economists, to find a bipartisan way of dealing with the issue, which could determine the success of efforts to balance the budget The officials said the administration would float several ideas, including the creation of a commission to make nonbinding recommendations They said the emphasis would be on trying to create a panel that would have technical credibility on a subject that is complex even for economists. The administration would prefer a panel whose members do not already have strong views on the subject so that their work did not appear rigged to find budget savings at the expense of benefit recipients (The New York Times, page A16). An editorial in Saturday's New York Times, "A Rational Way to Reduce the Deficit," says: "To fix the problem, Congress need not tamper with the actual computation of the [CPI] index, which is produced by a professional, nonpartisan staff at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Instead it could forthrightly acknowledge that the official measure is exaggerated, that a reliable measure is not yet available and that it will make a reasonable correction for the purposes of adjusting Federal spending and tax programs " Michael J. Boskin responds in the New York Times' letters-to-the-editor to an op-ed article (Feb. 27) by Joel Popkin.
[PEN-L:8834] Cuban Economists Forsee Three Scenarios For GDP Growth Rate In 1997
The Center of Studies of the Cuban Economy (CSCE), associated to Havana University, foresees three different scenarios for the GDP increase in 1997, with rates of 5, 6 and 7 percent, related to an increase of imports of 12, 15 and 17, as well as sugar production outputs of 4.7, 4.7-5, and more than 5 million tons respectively. In an annual seminar held in January experts presented their recommendations and figures to the Government. The economists considered the following aspects as main objectives of Cuban economic policy for this year: _to increase the supply of goods and services, _to improve the relation between wages and prices, and _to boost employment The conditions to achieve these growth rates are: no further deterioration of the international exchange rates, the international price for sugar must remain at around 12 cents the pound, and the production of cigars must attain 100 million cigars and that of nickel, 64 000 tons. Citric exports should also grow by 20%, the sales of marine products must reach the amount of 20 million dollars and the exports of iron and steel as well as electronic industries must increase 50% compared with 1996. Experts consider that irrespective of the tensions contained in the financial plan, conditions are better this year than last year to achieve these ambitious objectives. Juan Triana, Director of the CSCE, stressed that economic reforms must keep going, with new legislation, the creation of a National Treasury, the complete implementation of the bank reform, the creation of investment funds and the selling of public bonds, among other measures. This policy, he added, is based on a wide social consensus and the strong political leadership of president Fidel Castro, aspects that permitted the continuous growth shown so far, the increase of exports and the decrease of the fiscal deficit without deterioration of basic social indicators. However, the experts also warned of the problems the Cuban economy is facing and mentioned specifically the pattern of power consumption whose growth rate is currently greater than that of the GDP, the existing problem with the national payments system, and size distortions in the industrial sector. They also said it is necessary for Cuba to keep on working on the huge imbalances in the economy and on both the foreign trade and budget deficits. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8833] More Unemployed, Less Benefits Paid Out (Canada)
Because of changes made to unemployment insurance regulations by the federal Liberals after they came to power in 1993, the total of UI payments made in 1996 was lower than in 1995, even though the number of people unemployed remained the same or went up in 1996. According to Statistics Canada, in 1996, Canadians were paid $13.1 billion (unadjusted) in employment insurance payments, including regular and special benefits, down 5% from 1995. It says that "benefit payments have declined 32.3% since 1992, when a record $19.3 billion was paid." Regular benefit payments "declined 13.2% in December after remaining flat for the previous six months. This decline was led by Ontario (-17.9 %) and Quebec (-12.2%)." Today, Unemployment Insurance (UI) is called Employment Insurance (EI) even though there is no assurance of employment. According to StatsCan, "the number of Canadians who received regular employment insurance benefits declined by 3.1% in December, the third consecutive monthly decline. Declines were recorded in all provinces and territories except New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. During the past year the number of beneficiaries has trended downward, reaching levels not seen since the early 1980s."Beneficiaries Receiving Regular Benefits November to December 1996 (seasonally adjusted) Beneficiaries % change Canada659,640 -3.1 Newfoundland 37,990-0.4 Prince Edward Island 9,940 2.3 Nova Scotia34,970-0.7 New Brunswick 41,1100.1 Quebec225,490 -3.2 Ontario 170,630 -3.0 Manitoba 15,500-6.9 Saskatchewan 11,120-12.5 Alberta 36,940 -7.9 British Columbia72,330-4.1 Yukon 1,070 -9.0 Northwest Territories1,260 -5.7 In December, the number of people who applied for employment insurance benefits declined 7.7% to 220,000, led by Ontario (-15.5 %). In terms of 1996 as a whole, StasCan says that from May 1994 to April 1996, "a slow but consistently increasing trend in claims was recorded. Since then claims have fallen. On an unadjusted basis, 3.0 million people submitted claims in 1996, a 3.8% decline from 1995." Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8832] Fwd: Summer internships
[Note: send replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Are you looking for something exciting to do this summer? Looking to learn new skills, and meet great people? Democracy Summer teaches young people about progressive activism and trains them in the basic tools of civic organizing. Participants will learn how to build grassroots coalitions by working with professional organizers on campaigns for economic rights, democratic political reform, and civil liberties. Democracy Summer will begin with a training program in the Washington, D.C. area. Democracy Summer participants will be trained in basic campaign skills such as voter education, coalition building, and fundraising. At this training, interns will hear from leaders of progressive organizations and participate in workshops on issues such as economic justice, democratic reform, race relations, and community outreach. Democracy Summer is open to any young person between the ages of 18 and 25. Full-time interns will be provided with housing, transportation, and a stipend (additional funding may be available based on need). The program will begin with a training in mid-June and will last through early August. Potential sites include Boston, Denver, Little Rock, New York City, St. Paul, and Washington D.C. Democracy Summer interns will have the opportunity to play a critical role in the campaigns to which they are assigned. Activities will vary with the site, but will likely include voter registration, doorknocking, research, phone banking, volunteer recruitment, and media outreach. Interested? GREAT! Please send a cover letter and resume to Cassie Ehrenberg, Democracy Summer; 227 West 40th Street - Suite 1303; New York, New York 10018 by April 1, 1997. If you have questions, please feel free to call us (212-302-0638) or send an email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Democracy Summer is a project of the New Majority Education Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that works to help progressive organizations and coalitions build an infrastructure for social change. The New Majority Education Fund is a project of the Tides Center.
