[PEN-L:10394] re: bio-determinism

[William S. Lear]

On Wed, May 28, 1997 at 20:40:00 (-0700) James Devine writes:
> ...   (Bill Lear: I wouldn't see
>advertising as the basis for sexism: it's only one part of the seamless web
>of our culture.) 

Thanks for the Marvin Harris suggestion, I'll have to track him down.

I don't really see advertising as the basis for sexism, but I do think
that it, along with many other elements of our culture, helps foster
it.

>BTW, according to Michael Albert, he has been criticized by leftists for
>paying attention to the genetic basis of human behavior. So maybe Noam
>Chomsky has been criticized for speculating about the biological basis of
>ideas of justice. 

>From what I have read of Chomsky, his speculation has been
extraordinarily guarded.  Usually it's along the lines of citing (I
think) Bakunin's notion of an innate "instinct" for freedom, and some
very cautious remarks about language being a creative organ, etc.  He
usually makes it clear that he has no firm basis on which to rest
these speculations.

>...  My question (getting back to economics): in calculating the
>CPI, is the switch from pre-made to self-made furniture counted as simply a
>price cut? or is the increase in the owner's time, blood, tears, toil &
>sweat factored in? Dave? 

I'm also curious about goods which are now sold in giant stores (Office
Depot, for example) where the "sales staff" are generally clueless,
phone lines with automated menus replace a real salesperson, and you
generally have to forage for your own goods (I'm exaggerating a bit).


Bill

[PEN-L:10393] re: bio-determinism

[James Devine]

I wouldn't reject the role of all biology/genetics/evolution in explaining
human behavior. However, I would follow Marvin Harris, the anthropological
padrone primero of  "cultural materialism," to see a revolution in human
evolution, where the evolution of culture (including technology) replaced
the Darwinian/Mendelian evolution as the main mechanism of humanity's
change over time. Stephen J. Gould seems to agree: he argues that human
cultural evolution is more Lamarckian than Darwinian (i.e., that with
cultural evolution, acquired characteristics can and often are passed on to
offspring and many non-offspring). In this schema, biology & genetics only
_limit_ human potential. (One can't, without technological help, be faster
than a bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, or able to leap tall
buildings in a single bound. But with technology, we can.) This means that
we have to reject sociological or cultural determinism, even though
sociology and culture clearly play a role. (Bill Lear: I wouldn't see
advertising as the basis for sexism: it's only one part of the seamless web
of our culture.) 

BTW, according to Michael Albert, he has been criticized by leftists for
paying attention to the genetic basis of human behavior. So maybe Noam
Chomsky has been criticized for speculating about the biological basis of
ideas of justice. 

Irrelevant comment: today I put together a computer desk we bought at Ikea.
I know that Ikea's founder was a Nazi (after WW II of all times!!) but I
can't see that company as any worse than any other corporation. However,
they made the instructions so that they involved equal-opportunity
obscurity: no matter what language you speak, these instructions were
opaque. (Luckily there was a certain amount of logic to how the pieces fit
together, while Ikea produces better stuff than the other pre-fab desks
I've made.)  My question (getting back to economics): in calculating the
CPI, is the switch from pre-made to self-made furniture counted as simply a
price cut? or is the increase in the owner's time, blood, tears, toil &
sweat factored in? Dave? 

-- Jim Devine

[PEN-L:10392] International Workers Meeting Confronting Neoliberalism

[Michael Eisenscher]

International Workers Meeting Confronting Neoliberalism and the Global Economy
>Havana, Cuba -- August 6 to 8, 1997
>
>I think the following information would be welcome by participants on this
list. If you are not interested, you know were your delete key is.
>
>Following are the International Call to the Conference; letter from the
Labor Task Force of the Committees of Correspondence (CoC) urging U.S. trade
union and labor participation; and the basic application information from
the U.S./Cuba Labor Exchange.
>=
>
>1. International Workers Meeting Confronting Neoliberalism and the Global
Economy
>Havana, Cuba -- August 6 to 8, 1997
>
>On May 2nd, 1996 of last year an *International Union Meeting on Workers
Unity and Solidarity in the XXI Century* was held in Havana, Cuba.
>
>Union representatives from more than 49 countries of the 5 continents
participated. The delegates at the meeting agreed to organize and promote an
International meeting of workers to confront Neo-Liberalism and the Global
Economy. The delegates also proposed to invite International unions and
social organizations to attend, on the basis of broadening participation.
>
>The event will be held August 6, 7 and 8, 1997 in Havana, Cuba and will be
hosted by the Confederation of Cuban Workers, (CTC).
>
>1. Points of discussion - Proposals from workers to confront:
>-- Privatization
>-- Unemployment and sub-employment
>-- Lowering of wages
>-- Cuts in Social Security and deterioration of health care services and
education
>-- Racist attacks on Immigrants
>-- World uni-polarization
>-- Unfair wealth distribution
>-- Plans to weaken or eliminate unions
>-- Loss of countries sovereignty and independence
>-- Sexual discrimination and child labor
>-- Other specific aspects from each country or region
>
>==
>2. Dear friend,
>This summer the Confederation of Cuban Workers will be hosting an
International Workers Meeting on Confronting Neoliberalism and the Global
Economy, August 6-8.  Delegations from over 50 countries are expected to
attend.  The delegation from this country is being organized through the
US/Cuba Labor Exchange.
>
>The Committees of Correspondence Labor Task Force would like to urge you to
attend and to help build participation among fellow trade unionists for this
important conference.
>
>The topics that will be discussed at the Havana conference are the following:
>Privatization; Unemployment; Lowering of wages; Cuts in social security and
deterioration of health care services and education; Racist attacks on
immigrants; World uni-polarization; Unfair wealth distribution; Plans to
weaken or eliminate unions; Loss of countries' sovereignty and independence;
Sexual discrimination and child labor.
>
>The impetus for the conference came last year during the 17th Congress of
the Confederation of Cuban Workers, during which there were fascinating
exchanges with (among others) the Brazilian, Columbian and French trade
unionists and leaders on all sorts of questions ranging from trade union
rights to strategies on developing political muscle and restraining capital.
>
>Aside from the importance of grappling with the neo-liberal agenda
globally, this conference will provide opportunities to make contract with
leading progressive trade unionists throughout the world, as well as provide
opportunities to visit Cuba's hospitals, schools, child-care centers,
factories, etc. And I would encourage everyone who would like a change of
pace to go and take a vacation in a country where workers are in power.
>
>In preparation for the conference, two meetings have been organized, one on
the west coast held earlier this month, and a second which was scheduled for
May 24th on the east coast in New York City.
>
>If you are interested in attending the Havana conference and/or are
interested in participating in efforts to build for the conference, please
contact the U.S./Cuba Labor Exchange (see enclosed material). If you are
responding to this letter we would appreciate knowing if you are interested
in attending.
>
>In unity and struggle,
>Carol Lambiase (for the CoC Labor Task Force)
>11 John Street, Room 506
>New York, NY 10038
>phone: (212) 233-7151; fax: (212) 233-7063
>email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>==
>
>3. The U.S./Cuba Labor Exchange would like to invite you to attend a labor
seminar, which will be held in Havana, Cuba from August 2nd to 9th, 1997.
The seminar will be fully hosted by the CTC and the U.S. delegation will
stay at the Lazaro Pena school of the CTC.
>
>As part of the one week labor seminar you will attend the *International
Workers Meeting Confronting Neo-Liberalism and Global Economy*.  You will
also visit hospitals, schools, child-care centers, factories, etc. You will
meet with representatives from different unions, Cuban and int

[PEN-L:10391] International Workers Meeting Confronting Neoliberalism

[Schaffner]

International Workers Meeting Confronting Neoliberalism and the Global Economy
>>Havana, Cuba -- August 6 to 8, 1997
>>
>>I think the following information would be welcome by participants on this
list. If you are not interested, you know were your delete key is.
>>
>>Following are the International Call to the Conference; letter from the
Labor Task Force of the Committees of Correspondence (CoC) urging U.S. trade
union and labor participation; and the basic application information from
the U.S./Cuba Labor Exchange.
>>=
>>
>>1. International Workers Meeting Confronting Neoliberalism and the Global
Economy
>>Havana, Cuba -- August 6 to 8, 1997
>>
>>On May 2nd, 1996 of last year an *International Union Meeting on Workers
Unity and Solidarity in the XXI Century* was held in Havana, Cuba.
>>
>>Union representatives from more than 49 countries of the 5 continents
participated. The delegates at the meeting agreed to organize and promote an
International meeting of workers to confront Neo-Liberalism and the Global
Economy. The delegates also proposed to invite International unions and
social organizations to attend, on the basis of broadening participation.
>>
>>The event will be held August 6, 7 and 8, 1997 in Havana, Cuba and will be
hosted by the Confederation of Cuban Workers, (CTC).
>>
>>1. Points of discussion - Proposals from workers to confront:
>>-- Privatization
>>-- Unemployment and sub-employment
>>-- Lowering of wages
>>-- Cuts in Social Security and deterioration of health care services and
education
>>-- Racist attacks on Immigrants
>>-- World uni-polarization
>>-- Unfair wealth distribution
>>-- Plans to weaken or eliminate unions
>>-- Loss of countries sovereignty and independence
>>-- Sexual discrimination and child labor
>>-- Other specific aspects from each country or region
>>
>>==
>>2. Dear friend,
>>This summer the Confederation of Cuban Workers will be hosting an
International Workers Meeting on Confronting Neoliberalism and the Global
Economy, August 6-8.  Delegations from over 50 countries are expected to
attend.  The delegation from this country is being organized through the
US/Cuba Labor Exchange.
>>
>>The Committees of Correspondence Labor Task Force would like to urge you
to attend and to help build participation among fellow trade unionists for
this important conference.
>>
>>The topics that will be discussed at the Havana conference are the following:
>>Privatization; Unemployment; Lowering of wages; Cuts in social security
and deterioration of health care services and education; Racist attacks on
immigrants; World uni-polarization; Unfair wealth distribution; Plans to
weaken or eliminate unions; Loss of countries' sovereignty and independence;
Sexual discrimination and child labor.
>>
>>The impetus for the conference came last year during the 17th Congress of
the Confederation of Cuban Workers, during which there were fascinating
exchanges with (among others) the Brazilian, Columbian and French trade
unionists and leaders on all sorts of questions ranging from trade union
rights to strategies on developing political muscle and restraining capital.
>>
>>Aside from the importance of grappling with the neo-liberal agenda
globally, this conference will provide opportunities to make contract with
leading progressive trade unionists throughout the world, as well as provide
opportunities to visit Cuba's hospitals, schools, child-care centers,
factories, etc. And I would encourage everyone who would like a change of
pace to go and take a vacation in a country where workers are in power.
>>
>>In preparation for the conference, two meetings have been organized, one
on the west coast held earlier this month, and a second which was scheduled
for May 24th on the east coast in New York City.
>>
>>If you are interested in attending the Havana conference and/or are
interested in participating in efforts to build for the conference, please
contact the U.S./Cuba Labor Exchange (see enclosed material). If you are
responding to this letter we would appreciate knowing if you are interested
in attending.
>>
>>In unity and struggle,
>>Carol Lambiase (for the CoC Labor Task Force)
>>11 John Street, Room 506
>>New York, NY 10038
>>phone: (212) 233-7151; fax: (212) 233-7063
>>email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>==
>>
>>3. The U.S./Cuba Labor Exchange would like to invite you to attend a labor
seminar, which will be held in Havana, Cuba from August 2nd to 9th, 1997.
The seminar will be fully hosted by the CTC and the U.S. delegation will
stay at the Lazaro Pena school of the CTC.
>>
>>As part of the one week labor seminar you will attend the *International
Workers Meeting Confronting Neo-Liberalism and Global Economy*.  You will
also visit hospitals, schools, child-care centers, factories, etc. You will
meet 

[PEN-L:10390] Re: Umbrage

[Tom Walker]

Paul Phillips and I could go back and forth to no avail -- "yes it is", "no
it isn't" -- about whether the Alexa quote I submitted is "good social
democratic stuff". Or we could just agree to disagree. On a positive note,
I'm pleased to see the NDP's statement on the MAI (as far as it goes) even
though there's nothing in it that's particularly "social democratic". One
doesn't have to be a socialist or even a social democrat to be against
secret deals and special privileges.

I don't object to the NDP for "not being a socialist". If anything, I object
to the NDP not being sufficiently confident in their social democratic
principles to run on them and not being sufficiently coherent to get them
across to a broader public than their die-hard constituency. But I should be
clear that "not being confident enough" is a dilemma that I see as endemic
to social democracy. Give me a social democratic party that will campaign
and govern on social democratic principles and I'd be happy. In my view
that's like saying "give me a steak that will cut itself off the steer and
barbeque itself." 

When I listen to the NDP (or anyone for that matter, self excluded), I
listen with two ears. With one ear I hear what I think they're saying in the
context of what I know about their philosophy, history, platform etc., etc.
With the other ear I try to hear what the "non-literati" hear -- just the
words spoken against a much hazier backdrop of mainstream framing of issues.
In p.r. jargon it's called a "communication audit".

Noam Chomsky can gripe all he wants about the New York Times, he still gets
his message across. Whether through repetition, careful exposition of his
argument, exhaustive documentation or sheer doggedness, Chomsky gets his
message across.

I know that you (Paul) know what the NDP message is. I think I know what it
is. But when I listen to the NDP, I don't hear their message. I hear
excuses, I hear indignation, sometimes I even hear a kind of
self-congratulatory tone as if being marginalized was vindication enough of
moral superiority ("the meek shall inherit the earth.") BUT I DON'T HEAR
THEIR MESSAGE.

Paul asked,

>What I asked of you was what would you campaign credibly
>on that you think wouldbring about a socialist society?

I'll stick to what I know -- even though it might sound like I have an ax to
grind -- reducing work time and redistributing work. It's an issue that
wouldn't necessarily bring about a socialist society, but without it I see
little prospects for significant progressive social change of any kind. It's
an issue people are passionate about, that the NDP has a clearly defined
position on but that the NDP seems reluctant to raise forcefully -- perhaps
for fear that people "aren't ready" for it?  

Saturday I was doing a "community day" table for shorter work time at the
public library. All day long we had people coming up to us saying how glad
they were somebody was raising the issue of the need to redistribute work.
In the afternoon, several people who had just come from an all-candidates
meeting remarked on how frustrated they were that no one seemed to be
addressing the issue of unemployment creatively, "_this_ is what they should
be talking about" they told us (including one delightful 80-year old
grandmother wearing a HUGE Dawn Black (NDP) button).

Redistributing work is in the NDP platform. I've also heard several NDP
candidates address the issue. For example, Svend Robinson, appearing on
Cross-country Checkup responded to a very articulate question on the issue
by saying "It's in our platform and we support it." End of answer. During
the leader's debates, Alexa McDonough made an allusion to redistributing
work that was so vague and indirect that, unless you already knew it was in
the platform and already knew all the code words, you would've had to read
her mind to have any idea at all what she was talking about.

I suspect that what makes the NDP nervous about pushing this issue is not
that it is a socialist issue but that it is a nascent "movement issue".
Movement issues can upset the internal balance of an organization -- bring
in all sorts of "outsiders" who aren't house-broken to the party culture. 

Let's be honest, there are heeps of needy, alienated people rattling around
hungering for a cause to attach themselves to (and receive validation from)
and it can be safer in these perilous times to maintain a certain veneer of
institutional imperviousness. The litmus test of this outsider anxiety is
the question "who are you with?" On a political scale the equivalent
question is "how can the party appeal to a larger number of people who are
just like us."

It seems to me that's the question the NDP keeps asking itself.


Regards, 

Tom Walker
^^
knoW Ware Communications  |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA   |  "Only in mediocre art [and in spreadsheets]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-

[PEN-L:10389] Re: Gender roles

[William S. Lear]

On Wed, May 28, 1997 at 11:45:31 (-0700) Wojtek Sokolowski writes:
>...
>For these reasons, we can safely dismiss all so-so biologies, eveloutionary
>psychologies, etc. as crap without even reading it, for the same reason we
>dismiss astrology, parapsychology, and metaphysics without even bothering to
>refute them -- because they attempt to sneak on us an impossible task of
>linking the material and the spiritual into a single chain of events, or as
>my philosophy professor used to say: "to tie a real horse to a hitching post
>painted on a wall."
>...

Thanks for this outstanding analysis.  I knew when I read this book
that I smelt a rat.  I think I have the Gould book around here
somewhere and will enlighten myself with it this weekend.

>That notwithstanding, please read Barbara Ehrenreich's article in the latest
>issue of The Nation...

Which issue, precisely?


Bill

[PEN-L:10388] Re: New creationism

[Colin Danby]

I want to second Mark's post re Ehrenreich.  The _Nation_ 
article she co-wrote with Janet McIntosh is a net subtraction
from human knowledge.  The trick of imagining the most 
extreme pomo objection to your argument and then demolishing 
it has allowed peddlers of every variety of reductivism to
portray themselves as Defenders of Reason, and circumvent 
decades of careful critique.  Characteristic of this kind 
of sophistry are (a) little careful sourcing of the arguments
opposed and (b) highly emotive wording, as in this article's
efforts to portray lumped-together critics of biological 
determinism as "secular creationists."  

One would expect this kind of thing in _Commentary_, but it 
was a rude shock to come upon it in the _Nation_.  For this 
kind of stuff they cut Cockburn's space?

Best, Colin

[PEN-L:10387] Alexa on MAI (fwd)

[D Shniad]

I just received this message about the NDP's position on the MAI. Penners 
can use it as grist for the mill in the debate between Paul Phillips and
Tom Walker.

Cheers,

Sid Shniad

> 
>  Here is the position of the New Democratic Party of Canada
>  on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), one week
>  before our national election on June 2, 1997.
> 
> 
>   http://websmith.ca/fndp/election97/english/PressReleases/may27.html
> 
>   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
> 
>Tuesday, May 27, 1997
> 
> 
>  McDONOUGH QUESTIONS HIDDEN AGENDA ON MAI
> 
>  TORONTO -- Canadians have a right to know what the Multilateral
>  Agreement on Investment (MAI) will mean for their future, NDP
>  Leader Alexa McDonough said today.
> 
>  "The Liberals are negotiating the MAI behind closed doors,
>  cutting Canadians out of the loop," said Ms. McDonough. "The
>  agreement has huge implications for Canadians but the Liberals
>  have been working overtime to keep it out of the spotlight.
>  Canadians have a right to know about this deal."
> 
>  Canadians negotiators are at the OECD Ministerial Council today
>  discussing the MAI, which would limit the power of a national
>  government to establish rules for corporations operating within
>  their boundaries. A leaked draft of the agreement shows that the
>  Liberals are discussing proposals that would extend well beyond
>  the provisions of the WTO (World Trade Organization) and NAFTA.
> 
>  "The Liberals are asking Canadians for a blank cheque in this
>  election, but have done nothing to deserve it," she said. "We
>  need more NDP MPs in Ottawa who won't let the Liberals get away
>  with this kind of secrecy and hidden agendas."
> 
>  The NDP Leader posed four questions to the Liberals on the MAI:
> 
> o Can we keep requiring that companies who get Canadian tax dollars
>   create and maintain jobs in Canada?
> 
> o Can we keep using our natural resources for the benefit of
>   Canadians? Or does this deal force us, for example, to give
>   fishing licenses to foreign companies?
> 
> o Do we have to swallow foreign takeovers of Canadian companies,
>   where there's no clear value to Canadians?
> 
> o Does this deal have clear standards to protect working people,
>   the environment, human rights and culture?
> 
>Authorized by the New Democratic Party of Canada Association, Official
>   Agent for Canada's NDP.
> 
>    end -
> 
>  Here is the address for the NDP:
> 
>   http://websmith.ca/fndp/election97/english/introenglish.html
> 
>   email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>  Here is the address for NDP Leader, Alexa McDonough:
> 
>   http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/alexa.halifax/
> 
>   email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

[PEN-L:10386] Re: Greenwashing Times: Working Assets update 4/29/97

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

Thanks for posting Jon Entine's article.  It supports my suspicions voiced
in my pervious posting that much of "green marketing" is simply a gimmick
aimed at yuppies and suckers like myself who both wnat to have and eat their
cakes.

There is, however, one thing that I do not quite understand: how is this
deregulation of energy supply supposed to work as advertised?

In the market for, say, oranges, I can choose between organic and inorganic
fruit, beacuse these two batches are usually kept in separate baskets.  That
is not true about energy, as Jon Entine aptly pointed out in his piece. 

But that is not the end of my troubles.  Even if we forget the "green
marketing" and accept the fact that the consumer will invariably get a mix
of "clean" and "dirty" electrons, no matter who his/her billing company is,
how is the same mechanism supposed to bring the prices down?

In the market for oranges, the guy with high prices sees his product rotting
in the basket, while his competitors sell their fruit.  That forces him to
lower his price or take a loss.  Even if all orange suppliers pooled their
fruits into a single container, and then only sold "coupons" that entitle
the buyers to a specified quantity of oranges from the pool (a situation
comparable to the electric networks) -- they guy who did not sell as much as
he put in would own the unsold product at the end of the day -- and that
prospect would compel him to lower his price, if the sales were going poor.

The same, however, does not hold for electricity beacuse, unlike oranges, it
cannot be stored or even kept in any way.  Suppose that a billing agent
enters a contract with me to supply elecricity to my home.  Unlike buying
organges, this contract is "open ended", that is, I do not commit myself to
buying any specific amount of energy.  Suppose that the billing agent
estimates the average amount of energy their customers have used in the
past, and uses that as an indicator how much energy to buy from the
supppliers.  In all likelihood, that estimation will either underestimate or
overestimate the actual amount of energy used by customers.

If the biling agent overestimates the demand for energy, he is stuck with
the surplus energy at the end of the billing cycle which is either wasted
(because it cannot be stored) or quickly sold below the market rate to avoid
being wasted.  That means a loss to the billing agent who must pass it on
the consumer, unless he wants to be a chirtable organisation.

If the billing agent underestimates the demand fro energgy, he must "make
up" for the difference at the end of the billing cycle, or face an energy
shortage.  In either case, that means paying a higher price for the
"missing" energy (In the same vein as I will pay a higher air fare if I buy
may ticket a day instead of a month before the departure).  That gains means
a loss to the billing agent, and that loss will passed on the consumer.

Another possibility is that deregulation will force the billing agents to
impose "quota" on his/her customers to buy the mean amount of energy the
agent estimates, and penalizes the customer for using more or less energy
than the contracted amount.

>From that perspective, the deregulation of the energy market is more likely
to increase rather than reduce the cost of energy to an average consumer,
isn't it?  

Any comments?





wojtek sokolowski 
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax:   (410) 516-8233

[PEN-L:10385] Re: Greenwashing Times: Working Assets update

[Shawgi A. Tell]

Greetings,

What's diabolical about this capitalist point of view, as I'm sure you
know, is that workers already run and operate everything in society.  The
view is pushed that it is the workers who need the capitalists.  Of
course, the opposite is the case.  Speaking objectively, the workers have
no need for the capitalists.


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


On Wed, 28 May 1997, Elaine Bernard wrote:

> I few years ago, Harvard gave Ben Cohen, of Ben & Jerry's
> an award -- I forget the name of it -- but its an annual
> award for "progressive" business leaders (I know, its an
> oxymoron, but I just work here).  Anyway, I went to his
> talk, and was at the cocktail party/dinner afterwards.
> So I used the opportunity to ask Ben Cohen, politely
> I thought, what he would do if his workers decided to
> organize a union.  He literally jumped back from me and
> said, without hesitation that he would be hurt.  I asked
> him, why he thought that workers exercising their rights
> had anything to do with him (whether they like Ben or not),
> and did he really believe that the most ideal form of leadership
> is benevolent dictatorship (a good boss).  Needless to say
> the Provost rescued our honored guest before I could get
> my answers.  Still, I always find it interesting that all
> these guys (and gals) in the progressive business community
> simply can't imagine workers doing things for themselves
> including representing their interests collectively as anything
> other than an assault against them.
> 
> I've even heard the occasional union leader suggest that
> only workers who suffer a bad boss need to organize -- as
> opposed to the more obvious conclusion that I would draw
> that if we are to be a true democracy then workers should
> not only have the right to participate in decisions that
> affect them, but have an obligation.  That the default
> position of labor law should not be union free -- but in
> fact, organized.  And that rather than labor law being a
> series of barriers over which workers have to climb to
> establish the right to collective bargaining, that labor
> law should be a series of barriers over which workers
> must climb (with the state certifying that a majority
> of workers have freely chosen after a vigorous campaign)
> to abolish their collective representation, relenquish
> the right to participate in decisons and opt for
> individual representation.
> 
> Elaine Bernard
> 

[PEN-L:10384] IBM felonies

[Louis Proyect]

A while back, somebody asked me about a citation for IBM putting out tab
machines with the competition's brand name on it, but with faulty
mechanical innards. This is described along with a multitude of other
crimes and misdemeanors in:

 Author: DeLamarter, Richard Thomas.
 Title:  Big Blue : IBM's use and abuse of power / Richard Thomas
   DeLamarter.
 
 Edition:1st ed.
 Description:xviii, 393 p. ; 25 cm.
 Published:  New York : Dodd, Mead, c1986.


Louis Proyect

[PEN-L:10383] Cyber-revolution

[Louis Proyect]

The Chicago area computer programmers and activists who decided to start a
new journal called cy.Rev chose wisely to publish on the World Wide Web of
the Internet. This is a great example of merging medium and the message
after the fashion of Marshall McLuhan. The driving force behind this
project is Carl Davidson, a leader of SDS in the 1960s and editor of the
Guardian Newspaper during the 1970s. In recent years Davidson has done
computer consulting for non-profit groups and unions in the Chicago area
and believes passionately in the new technology.

Davidson and others organized themselves into the Chicago Third Wave Study
Group which started cy.Rev in an effort to promote their ideas in
"cyberspace". They dubbed themselves "Third Wave" because the futurists
Alvin and Heidi Toffler were a strong influence on their vision of
socialism. The Tofflers have been promoting the Third Wave theory like
missionaries for years. Only since the arrival of personal computing and
the Internet has "Third Wave" theory achieved the kind of high profile the
Tofflers have sought for it over the years.

What exactly is the Third Wave? Put simply, the theory states that there
are three important "waves" in social history: (1) rural societies based on
agriculture, (2) urban societies that emerged with the industrial
revolution, and (3) the information-based world in which we currently
reside. The United States is in the throes of this third microchip-inspired
wave. Most of its difficulties are the fault of its inability to migrate
smoothly out of the "Second Wave" of dying smokestack industries into the
promised land of computer networks and knowledge-based industries.

Newt Gingrich is a booster of the "Third Wave." So is Wired Magazine, a
cosponsor of high-tech conferences with the Georgia reactionary. Davidson
and the editors of cy.Rev want to cut the ties between "Third Wave" theory
and its right-wing supporters and enlist in on behalf of a technologically
supercharged version of market socialism. Not surprisingly, they blame the
problems of traditional Marxism as having been too closely connected with
"Second Wave" thinking. Such thinking gave birth to Stalinist bureaucracies
where investments in heavy industry took priority over the technology of
the information revolution.

There is a strong green emphasis in cy.Rev which argues that "Third Wave"
socialism can also help to alleviate the environmental crisis. Both "Second
Wave" capitalism and socialism have caused environmental degradation,
despite the best intentions of governments east and west: "This feature of
industrial society is not a problem of the distant future. It is the 'dirty
little secret' of today's world standing behind the rising the conflict
between North and South. The truth is that we cannot have economic equality
among nations based on today's levels and standards. If every country in
the world were organized on just the same level and just the same types of
production and consumption that are 'enjoyed' in the either the U.S., or
Europe, or Japan, or even the former Soviet Union, the resulting polluted
biosphere would render the globe uninhabitable for humans."

Rejecting the development model of the former USSR, cy.Rev places itself
squarely in the market socialism camp:

"In our view of socialism, we affirm the entrepreneurial spirit, the
motivating energy of the market and the right of individuals to become
wealthy through the private ownership of the capital they have helped to
create. At the same time, we fundamentally reorder priorities in how both
property and capital is defined. While both personal property and capital
may still be owned by individuals. we no longer see ownership as an
absolute power. Property, especially productive property in the form of
capital, is to be seen primarily as a social power relation that can be
guided and regulated, just as other power relations are regulated for the
common good of society. Incomes are also subject to progressive taxation."

According to cy.Rev, the biggest obstacle to a smooth transition to "Third
Wave" socialism in the United States is the stubborn tendency of jobs to
disappear in capitalist society. They draw attention to studies such as
Jeremy Rifkin's "The End of Work" and Stanley Aronowitz and William
DiFazio's "The Jobless Future" which attempt to explain this problem. Both
books take note of the replacement of blue-collar jobs through automation.
Rifkin's solution is to create more jobs in the non-profit world of
museums, schools and parks and the like. Davidson sympathies lie with the
socialists Aronowitz and DiFazio (Aronowitz has recently joined the
editorial board of cy.Rev). Reduction of work hours, regulation of capital
to prevent capital flight, quality education with an accent on computer
skills, a guaranteed income and a new research agenda geared to human needs
rather than private profit are some of the solutions they propose in "The
Jobless Future."

In addition to promotin

[PEN-L:10382] Re: Gender roles

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 08:32 AM 5/28/97 -0700, Bill Lear wrote:

>Buss uses what is called "evolutionary psychology" to explain the
>"mating" preferences of men and women.  Basically, women, since they
>are more reproductively "valuable" than men and must invest much more
>in the gestation of a child, naturally "select" men which can provide
>them with a steady supply of resources.  Men are looking for cues to
>reproductive capacity, which must be deduced indirectly, since human
>females have what is known as "cryptic" ovulation as compared our
>primate relatives.  These cues are youth, health, and other "beauty"
>cues such as hip-size (actually, waist to hip ratio---.70 being about
>"ideal"), which provide fairly good estimates as to a woman's
>reproductive capacity.
-- snip ---

>I was just wondering if anyone has read any of this stuff (either
>Buss, or evolutionary psychology in general) and if so, if they might
>provide some comments.

I reply:

Even though I have not read the stuff you are quoting (I'm trying to limit
the informational pollution in my intellectual environment) -- the arguments
trying to link some cultural or better yet, moral traits to physiological or
genetic traits are nihil novi sub solem -- there were the standard stuff of
what passed for 'anthropology' in the 19th century -- a good critical review
of those theories can be found in Stephen Jay Gould, _The Mismeasure of
Man_, the value of this work lies in the fact that Gould himselef is a
natural scientist and he actually knows the stuff he is talking about, as
opposed to social philosophers, engineers or comentators who cook this kind
of 'science'.

The argument against this kind of thinking (old and new alike), that used to
be called socio-biology in 1970s (or as my anthropology profesor used to say
"so-so biology") goes as follows: so-so biologists have no way of
demonstrating, without subverting the usual standards of scientific
verification, that the connection they are claiming is not a spurious
correlation or a hindsight rationalisation.  This is so, because they are
trying to establish a connection between the material and the metaphysical
(ideational, spiritual, moral, cultural) -- the task known to scientists as
impossible at least since Immanuel Kant.

In order to establish a causal connection between physiological/genetic
traits and behaviour, the researcher must identify an empircially observable
mechanism that produces a particular behaviour (e.g. the secretion of a
hormone); that task is not impossible, but what the so-so biologists try to
accomplish is linking physiological/genetical traits not to behviour itself
but to its specific form endowed with a cultural or moral value.  

To give you an example: suppose that we identify a hormon responsible for
aggressive behviour. That fact would be normally construed by so-so
biologists as a "proof" that aggresiveness is a part of the "human nature."
What so-so biologists do not tell us, and what makes their argument a
non-sequitur, is that aggressive behaviour can take many possible forms:
from vicious attacks on helpless victims, to picking up fist fights, to
systematic killing with the help of modern organisation & technology (cf.
the army), to verbal and emotional abuse, to conventionalised competition
(cf. among business execs) to culture and literary wars, and to political
debates.  While all these forms aim at defeating a competitor, only some are
culturally labeled as "aggressive." 

The same, of course, applies to sexual attraction.  Not only standards of
beauty, but also "sexually explicit" body parts vary from culture to
culture: whereas Americans seem to be fixated on large brests (an anomaly by
European standards), for other cultures such "sexually explict" areas may be
backs (sic!) or feet.  Another variable is body fat, and for many African
tribes the anorexic whitie models populating the pages of teen magazines are
plain ugly.

Now the question which the so-so biologists simply are not the position to
answer without evoking some supernatural forces is "How are the hormones or
the genes supposed to know which form of aggressive behaviour is "really"
(i.e. socially defined as) aggressive? Or what body signals are "really"
sexually explicit?"

Furthermore, even if we manage to identify some empirically observable
physiological mechanism that causes a particular form of behaviour, so-so
biologists would have to tell us how that mechanism is triggered.  That is,
even if the secretion of a certain hormone can be positively linked to a
particular form of aggressive behaviour (e.g. a physical attack), that
hormone is released only upon a signal from the brain.  In other words,
cognitive processing is required to identify the incoming stimulus as a
signal of a situation that warrants this particular form of aggression.  For
example, a mere sight of the "sexually explict" body parts (which themselves
are culturally defined) is not enough to trigger a sexual behaviour; the
whole conte

[PEN-L:10381] FW: Petition to American Airlines

[Bove, Roger E.]

 --
From: Pennell, Julia
To: Esposito, Jeffrey P.; Kabatt, Laura T.; Pyle, Spencer M.; Battisti, 
Armand A.; Boes, Maria; McCullough, Mary; Bove, Roger E.; Hewitt, William; 
Larsen, Elizabeth; Lammers, Kevin E.; Kelly, Leonard I.; Bednar, Cynthia; 
Jimenez, Carolyn; Radich, Carol Ann; DeVestern, Diane; Hodes, Jacqueline; 
Ressner, Joel; Welsh, Lesley Ann; Oliaro, Paul M.; Richardson, Pamela A. J.; 
Garrett, Robin; Welch, Joan; anna; atkeison; Radcliffe; 'cyndy'; Cohles; 
Debby; Irv; Flo; Giess; iliff; Mitchell; CARTER; MacFadyen; neff; Gangwisch; 
Neary; Kryven; Larson; baxter; WC-D; Lohr; al; Don Miles; Mary Miles; 
Catherine; Deans; Sue; linda; Tom Pavelchek; Pavelchek, Thomas   TPAVELCHEK; 
Audrey; UUKat
Subject: FW: Petition to American Airlines
Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 4:14PM


 --
From: Emmons, Paul
To: Wilson, Carol A.; Pennell, Julia; Garrett, Robin
Subject: Petition to American Airlines
Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 2:38PM

BACKGROUND:
American Airlines is a major sponsor to and supporter of groups like
GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, the
AIDS Action Foundation, DIFFA, AmFAR, and scores of community-based
groups representing gays and lesbians.  It is also the first airline to
adopt a written non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation in
its employment practices.

An unusual joint letter was released to the media on Friday, March 14th
from the Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America,
American Family Association and Coral Ridge Ministries. Radical right
leader >>Beverly LaHaye also went on Christian "talk radio" on Friday to
blast American Airlines because "American's sponsorship of homosexual
'pride' events constitutes an open endorsement of promiscuous
homo-sexuality."  She and the other groups have written Bob Crandall at
American to complain that the airline has "gone beyond mere tolerance"
of gays and lesbians.  The full article appeares in Friday's Fort Worth
Star-Telegram, and possibly picked up by other newspapers around the
country.

American Airline's switchboard and e-mails are being bombarded now by
homophobic and hateful callers who have been urged by LaHaye and others
to DEMAND the company terminate its gay-friendly policies.

WHAT YOU CAN DO
At the end of this note is a petition supporting American Airlines'
stance on gay rights.  If you feel that discrimination is in nobody's
best interest, add your name to the list below.  And, of course, pass it
on.
 --
IF YOU ARE the 25th, 50th, 75th, 100th, etc., person to sign this
petition, please forward this copy to American Airlines at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 --

To American Airlines:
We, the undersigned, support your gay/lesbian rights polices and commend
you for your efforts in ending discrimination.  Thank you for your
dedication to such issues and please continue to remain active in the
struggle to end discrimination.

1. Marybeth Kurtz, Philadelphia, PA
2. Jen Faust, Goucher College, Balto. MD
3. Heather Riley, UMBC, Balto., MD
4. Katy Schuman, UMBC, Balto., MD
5. Rebekka Gold, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH.
6. Danielle Hirsch, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH.
7. Jerrod Wendland, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH.
8. Jon Morgan, Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, OH.
9. Keri Rainsberger, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
10. Cheryl Lynn Bates, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
11. Court Singrey, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
12. Carol Fischer, Indiana University, Bloomington IN.
13. Victoria R. Gardner, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
14. Joshua S. Greenbaum, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
15. Tamara Grybko, Boston, MA
16. Jameson Hill, San Francisco, CA
17. Ed Roppo, San Francisco, CA
18. Christopher Pratt, Mountain View, CA
19. Tom Lloyd, San Francisco, CA
20. Brian Kliment, San Francisco, CA
21. Steve Christensen, Palo Alto, CA
22. Michael Larson, Sunnyvale, CA
23. Emily Rudenick, Dallas, TX
24. Ramya Vivekanandan, The George Washington University, Washington DC
25. Resha Shah, The George Washington University, Washington DC
26. Erin Hutton, University of Missouri-Columbia, MO
27. Elisabeth Brown, San Francisco, CA
28. Justus Daniel Brazelton, San Francisco, CA
29. Salim Cain, Western MD College, Westminster, MD
30. Jennifer Burns, San Francisco, CA
31. Gary Sanders, Half Moon Bay, CA
32. Sue Scott, So. Pasadena, CA
33. Jenny Meadows, Arlington, TX >>
34. Betty Young, 5658 Forney Rd, Dallas ,Texas.
35. Shelby Kuenning, Great Falls, MT
36. Geoff Kuenning, Granada Hills, CA
37. Mary Ellen FitzPatrick, Simi Valley, CA
38. Karen Taylor McDaniel, Pasadena, CA
39. Deeder McDaniel, Pasadena, CA
40. Brian Donahoo, San Diego, CA
41. Paulette Radke, San Diego, CA
42. Brenda Kulow, La Crosse, WI
43. Chris Vogt, Madison, WI
44. Kimberly Marshall, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
45. Jason Winter, Madison WI
46. Mere

[PEN-L:10380] Re: Greenwashing Times: Working Assets update

[Elaine Bernard]

I few years ago, Harvard gave Ben Cohen, of Ben & Jerry's
an award -- I forget the name of it -- but its an annual
award for "progressive" business leaders (I know, its an
oxymoron, but I just work here).  Anyway, I went to his
talk, and was at the cocktail party/dinner afterwards.
So I used the opportunity to ask Ben Cohen, politely
I thought, what he would do if his workers decided to
organize a union.  He literally jumped back from me and
said, without hesitation that he would be hurt.  I asked
him, why he thought that workers exercising their rights
had anything to do with him (whether they like Ben or not),
and did he really believe that the most ideal form of leadership
is benevolent dictatorship (a good boss).  Needless to say
the Provost rescued our honored guest before I could get
my answers.  Still, I always find it interesting that all
these guys (and gals) in the progressive business community
simply can't imagine workers doing things for themselves
including representing their interests collectively as anything
other than an assault against them.

I've even heard the occasional union leader suggest that
only workers who suffer a bad boss need to organize -- as
opposed to the more obvious conclusion that I would draw
that if we are to be a true democracy then workers should
not only have the right to participate in decisions that
affect them, but have an obligation.  That the default
position of labor law should not be union free -- but in
fact, organized.  And that rather than labor law being a
series of barriers over which workers have to climb to
establish the right to collective bargaining, that labor
law should be a series of barriers over which workers
must climb (with the state certifying that a majority
of workers have freely chosen after a vigorous campaign)
to abolish their collective representation, relenquish
the right to participate in decisons and opt for
individual representation.

Elaine Bernard

[PEN-L:10379] Re: New creationism

[Mark Weisbrot]

I have to say I did not like that "New Creationism" article at all, and 
wonder why the Nation would even print it, let alone make it their cover 
article. In an age when Newsweek runs cover stories about how standards of 
beauty are genetically determined, books like the Bell Curve get a serious 
hearing from the press, and socio-biological explanations of every social 
problem from alcholism to suicide run practically unchallenged as truth on a 
weekly basis in the New York Times' Science Times, I find it hard to get to 
worried about the left "overreacting" to bio-determinism in general. I have 
never seen anyone on the Left trash Noam Chomsky for speculating that some 
of our notions of justice, for example, may be innate. 

The worst part of this article is that it lumps together those of us 
on the Left who have no patience for bio-determinism, with the pomo attack 
on science in general and  its epistemological underpinnings. This is a nice 
debating trick, but I am surprised that the editors of the Nation would fall 
for it. The pomos are certainly right to reject socio-biological 
explanations of social problems, and other forms of essentialism. But not 
everyone who agrees with these critiques is "anti-science," or even 
close-minded with regard to explorations of  "human nature."

Mark Weisbrot

--- On Wed, 28 May 1997 08:32:59 -0700 (PDT)  Wojtek Sokolowski 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is an excellent article in the last issue of The Nation by Barbara
> Ehrenreich on "new creationsim" -- radical social constructivism asserting
> unqueness of human nature, stemming from a certain brand of postmodernism,
> and characterised by its hostility toward "hard" sciences.
> 
> However, Ehrenreich seems to miss the class dimension of the problem, a
> strange omission for a democratic socialist, indeed.  Enclosed is a copy 
my
> letter to The Nation's editor on that subject.  Any comments?
> 
> ws
> 
> encl.
> ---
> 
> In her otherwise excellent article on the "new creationism" (June 9, 
1997), 
> Barbara Ehrenreich misses an important factor contributing to the spread 
of 
> this phenomenon - the class structure of the American society.  More 
> specifically, the over-growth of the "scribbling class."  The US has a 
much 
> larger university-educated class than any other industrialized nation: 24% 
of 
> the population 25 to 64 years of age, as compared to the mean 12% for the 
OECD 
> countries.
> 
> The economist John Kenneth Galbraith once described his profession as 
> "suppliers of needed conclusions to those in a position to pay for them."  
> That apt characterization pertains to other scribbling professions as well.  
> Together with the product-oriented culture of the academe ("publish or 
> perish"), the large size of the university-educated class translates not only 
> into the oversupply of the producers of intellectual commodity, but also into 
> the substantial demand for such a commodity.
> 
> Cultural identity politics and cultural relativism espoused by "new 
> creationists" are not just the matter of personal taste for scientific 
> nihilism.  The professed absence of human commonality and the relativism of 
> scientific standards to narrowly defined group interests are also instrumental 
> in developing market niches which, in turn, reduce direct competition among 
> producers of intellectual commodity, aka critical evaluation of research 
> results and claims to scientific validity.  
> 
> In such an intellectual climate, anything that is printed passes for 
> "scientific truth."  The more bizarre an intellectual commodity, the greater 
> its chances of becoming a fetish for someone in search of unique cultural 
> identity.  This is yet another example of what Marx aptly described as the 
> powerful influence of the forces of material production on the production and 
> distribution of ideas of our age.
> wojtek sokolowski 
> institute for policy studies
> johns hopkins university
> baltimore, md 21218
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> voice: (410) 516-4056
> fax:   (410) 516-8233
> 
> 

---End of Original Message-

-
Name: Mark Weisbrot
E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Preamble Center for Public Policy
1737 21st Street NW
Washington DC 20009
(202) 265-3263 (offc)
(202) 333-6141 (home)
fax: (202)265-3647

[PEN-L:10378] Re: Greenwashing Times: Working Assets update

[Doug Henwood]

Excellent piece on Working Assets from Entine, who's done excellent work on
the whole soulful capitalism scam (Body Shop, Ben & Jerry's, socially
responsible investing, etc.).

And who are the two corporate co-sponsors of the upcoming Media & Democracy
conference in NYC (entrance fee: a very democratic $200)? Body Shop and
Working Assets.

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: 
web: 

[PEN-L:10377] Re: Gender roles

[James Devine]

there's clearly a biological/genetic/evolutionary basis for sexism.
Obviously, the average man's superior upper body strength compared to the
average woman gives him the upper hand when "might makes right." And that's
a basis of a lot of women's subordination (even though it's becoming
technologically obsolete). 

The key question I have about efforts to use evolutionary theory to
understand gender roles is whether or not they make a serious effort to
separate the sociological factors from the genetic ones (and look at how
sociology conditions biology and vice-versa). It's very hard to do. The
hallmark of "sociobiology" is its tendency to ignore the sociological or
rather to reduce all sociology to biology.


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:10376] Greenwashing Times: Working Assets update 4/29/97

[Eugene P. Coyle]

>Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:12:32 -0400
>From: Jon Entine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Organization: RuffRun
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Greenwashing Times: Working Assets update 4/29/97
>
>JON ENTINE 4/29/97
>NOT FOR PUBLICATION: SOURCE MATERIAL ONLY/
>PLEASE FEEL FREE TO POST OR DISTRIBUTE
>
>WORKING ASSETS and the POLITICS of “GREEN POWER”
>An opportunity to nurture the development of more energy options,
>especially renewable energy, is falling victim to politics within the
>“green power” and environmental movements. This bungled moment comes
>just as a deregulation wave sweeps through the energy industry opening
>it to competition from alternative, green producers.
>
>In a desire to promote lower costs and bring more competition to the
>energy industry, numerous states have embarked on pilot programs to
>deregulate the price of electricity. In the coming years, many states
>will introduce full-scale retail competition. Although there is at
>present considerable excess electric capacity, rates have long been kept
>artificially high (for many complicated reasons). According to energy
>experts, this excess capacity will persist well into the next century.
>
>De-regulation brings supply and demand more in balance, in effect
>allowing prices to float downward to reflect the current situation of
>excess energy. It opens the door for registered third parties – in this
>case Working Assets – to contract with local suppliers for their unused
>capacity, mark it up according to their own marketing standards, and
>resell it to pilot customers.
>
>In 1996, New Hampshire became one of the first states to open up a
>fraction of its market, 3%, to outside companies. These companies
>contracted with the dozen+ companies that feed into the New England
>energy pool grid known as NEPOOL.
>
>That’s when the questionable green marketing story began.
>
>Working Assets Long Distance becomes Working Assets Green Power
>
>One of the 30-odd companies that jumped into the pilot project to buy
>and resell electric capacity was Working Assets Green Power, a division
>of Working Assets Funding Service, which operates Working Assets Long
>Distance. It promises to bring “clean” renewable energy to customers.
>
>Does it tell the truth?
>
>CEO Laura Scher positions Working Assets as a leading `socially
>responsible company.’ WALD is a “pass through” telephone company, which
>means it leases the phone lines from competitors (WALD contracts
>primarily with Sprint, the target of considerable criticism from
>activist groups) and tacks on an “integrity” premium based on its brand
>marketing as a ‘progressive’ company. That reputation is based largely
>on its donation of 1% of its telephone bills to popular activist groups
>(and it gets the tax deduction for your contribution) and its vocal
>campaigning on behalf of a myriad of high-profile social issues. It
>advertises heavily in New Age publications like Mother Jones and Utne
>Reader.
>
>A look beneath the green veneer, however, raises disturbing questions
>about WALD’s basic integrity.
>
>Although WALD markets that its long distance rates are “lower” than
>competitors, its rates are consistently higher than the “big three” – as
>much as 300%+ higher when you compare overseas rates using its
>competitors popular “one rate” plans [compare WALD and AT&T on the UK].
>WALD’s low “basic rates” is functionally equivalent to “list price” on
>new cars: nobody pays it. Even AT&T charges only 10 cents/ minute/24
>hours a day (plus $4.95 month).
>
>There are also at least two great “progressive” options for US
>customers: EarthTones charges 15 cents/minute with no monthly charge and
>Affinity, which is offered through environmental groups, will beat your
>current rate by 10% – meaning it would charge as little as 9.1 cents.
>Best of all, EarthTones gives all its profits to charity and Affinity
>gives 5% to its environmental sponsors – so you’re not lining the
>pockets of WALD which systematically overcharges its customers.
>
>WA CEO Laura Scher is also on the board of Community Products Inc.
>(CPI), the company created 

[PEN-L:10375] Re: Working Assets & Labor

[Eugene P. Coyle]

I want to raise a different issue re Working Assets.  Working
Assets has moved aggressively into green marketing of electricity, and it
is doing it in a very dishonest way.  I'm on the Energy Advocates List and
we've had a vigorous debate about both the merits of green marketing as a
way to drive renewable energy forward and also about the behavior of
Working Assets in particular.

Jon Entine, a journalist, has contributed a lot of research and
strong attacks on Working Assets.  Some mainstream environmentalists have
leaped to the defense of Working Assets.  I will forward one of Entine's
toned-down reports on Working Assets.

In an earlier version Entine went into how WALD is ripping off its
phone customers with prices much higher than others charge.  One
interesting wrinkle is that WALD gets the tax deduction for the
"contributions" its customers send to the charities.  I'll try to locate
one of these earlier versions and forward that as well.

My own view is that neither green pricing (where an electric
utility asks customers to contribute a little more on their electric bill
so that more renewable generating capacity will get built) and/or green
marketing (where a vendor asserts it is selling clean power) is a good
policy step.  Basically it asks the public to charitably contribute to get
what it wants.  Some simple arithmetic and some pretty conservative
assumptions convinces me that it won't drive renewables even if someone
believed that it was a good idea.

Residential electricity consumption is about one-third of total.
So two-thirds of the market (industrial and commercial customers) is exempt
from contributing for clean power.  Then add some assumptions about how
many residential will contribute, and how many dollars, and it is clear
that green marketing will fail to develop the market.  I've written this up
and can forward the piece to anyone who would like it.

   Gene Coyle


>To all who use Workings Assets (WALD) as their long distance phone company.
>
>As you know WALD has program funding nonprofit organisations working for
>progressive causes.  However, they are yet to provide funding to any
>organization defending workers' rights in this country.  To my knowledge,
>they have been funding mainly organizations that save whales, plant trees
>for peace  and kindred hippe causes.

[PEN-L:10374] New creationism

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

There is an excellent article in the last issue of The Nation by Barbara
Ehrenreich on "new creationsim" -- radical social constructivism asserting
unqueness of human nature, stemming from a certain brand of postmodernism,
and characterised by its hostility toward "hard" sciences.

However, Ehrenreich seems to miss the class dimension of the problem, a
strange omission for a democratic socialist, indeed.  Enclosed is a copy my
letter to The Nation's editor on that subject.  Any comments?

ws

encl.
---

In her otherwise excellent article on the "new creationism" (June 9, 1997), 
Barbara Ehrenreich misses an important factor contributing to the spread of 
this phenomenon - the class structure of the American society.  More 
specifically, the over-growth of the "scribbling class."  The US has a much 
larger university-educated class than any other industrialized nation: 24% of 
the population 25 to 64 years of age, as compared to the mean 12% for the OECD 
countries.

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith once described his profession as 
"suppliers of needed conclusions to those in a position to pay for them."  
That apt characterization pertains to other scribbling professions as well.  
Together with the product-oriented culture of the academe ("publish or 
perish"), the large size of the university-educated class translates not only 
into the oversupply of the producers of intellectual commodity, but also into 
the substantial demand for such a commodity.

Cultural identity politics and cultural relativism espoused by "new 
creationists" are not just the matter of personal taste for scientific 
nihilism.  The professed absence of human commonality and the relativism of 
scientific standards to narrowly defined group interests are also instrumental 
in developing market niches which, in turn, reduce direct competition among 
producers of intellectual commodity, aka critical evaluation of research 
results and claims to scientific validity.  

In such an intellectual climate, anything that is printed passes for 
"scientific truth."  The more bizarre an intellectual commodity, the greater 
its chances of becoming a fetish for someone in search of unique cultural 
identity.  This is yet another example of what Marx aptly described as the 
powerful influence of the forces of material production on the production and 
distribution of ideas of our age.
wojtek sokolowski 
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax:   (410) 516-8233

[PEN-L:10373] Gender roles

[William S. Lear]

In August of 1994 I wrote a few very brief notes on a book I had just
read (subsequently lost in the mail from a friend who borrowed it)
called _The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating_ by David
M. Buss (Basic Books, 1994).  Since we had been on the topic of gender
roles, I thought I might share this, even though it is a bit far from
economics.  It was quite interesting, though I'm not sure I agree with
his conclusions (one of which is, if I remember correctly, that we
really should not blame advertising for women being seen as "sex
objects").

Buss uses what is called "evolutionary psychology" to explain the
"mating" preferences of men and women.  Basically, women, since they
are more reproductively "valuable" than men and must invest much more
in the gestation of a child, naturally "select" men which can provide
them with a steady supply of resources.  Men are looking for cues to
reproductive capacity, which must be deduced indirectly, since human
females have what is known as "cryptic" ovulation as compared our
primate relatives.  These cues are youth, health, and other "beauty"
cues such as hip-size (actually, waist to hip ratio---.70 being about
"ideal"), which provide fairly good estimates as to a woman's
reproductive capacity.
 
Buss gives some fairly sophisticated arguments for why humans select
mates as they do.  For example, he reasons that men prefer a hip ratio
approaching .70 because a higher ratio mimics pregnancy, is correlated
with diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, heart problems, and
others.  Lower ratios are correlated with earlier "pubertal endocrine
activity," greater ease in becoming pregnant, greater ease in carrying
and bearing a baby, etc.
 
I was just wondering if anyone has read any of this stuff (either
Buss, or evolutionary psychology in general) and if so, if they might
provide some comments.


Bill

[PEN-L:10372] crimes against humanitarianism

[Doug Henwood]

I just got a press release announcing a protest. The event itself is so
luscious that I can't resist passing it on.

On June 29, 1997, 6 PM, Waldorf-Astoria NYC, the United Jewish Appeal will
present its Humanitarian of the Year Award to...Rupert Murdoch. Making the
actual presentation will be that great humanitarian, Henry Kissinger. Word
in philanthropic circles (though not in the press release) is that the UJA
is making this award because Murdoch and his media outlets are great
friends of Israel.

For information about the counter-festivities, call 212-496-4550.

Doug

[PEN-L:10371] Umbrage

[PHILLPS]

But Tom, what you quote Alexa as saying is good social democratic
stuff -- make the capitalist system work properly through
redistribution, sound fiscal and monetary policy, and the provision
of a secure social wage.  You are criticizing her for not being
a socialist.  But the CCF abandoned any pretence of socialism
with the Winnipeg declaration in 1956.  This has been my point
all along, you can criticize social democracy if you want on
grounds that it won't deal with the problems of capitalism, but
don't criticize a social democrat for being a social democrat and
dealing with the problems as she sees fit.  She has addressed the
problems in the campaign (including the MAI), but you don't like
her solutions.  Within the context of what I think is possible in
the present climate, I think the alterntive budget etc. are
feasible, credible and would ease a lot of social pain.  But a lot
more will be needed in the long run to move to a socialist society of
course.  What I asked of you was what would you campaign credibly
on that you think wouldbring about a socialist society?
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
Manitoba