[PEN-L:12230] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
Michael is right. I apologise for not stating whom he was quoting. Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150 On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Michael Eisenscher wrote: Bill and List: I would appreciate it if, when you reply to an article I have posted, you identify the author rather than me or make clear that I am not the author but only the person who posted the article. To read Bill's response, one would think I wrote the comments on NAFTA. I will take full responsibilty for my own thoughts and comments. I don't want to be held responsible for the range of views expressed in articles I repost. The alternative is that I simply cease posting other people's material to the list. Thanks, Michael At 08:59 AM 9/9/97 -0700, Bill Burgess wrote: On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Michael Eisenscher quoted: 1)NAFTA has created new problems. Our food supply is less safe. Due to the increase in border traffic in meat and produce, more food with dangerous pesticide residues or bacteria is getting to our kitchens. Less than 1 percent of the imports of fruit and vegetables coming from Mexico is inspected at the border. The diminished inspection rates along our border has resulted in an unprecedented flow of illegal drugs. Along our southern border, the drugs and uninspected foods are coming across in over-large, often unsafe trucks, which have increased access to U.S. highways under NAFTA. Instead of creating jobs, as the pro-"free trade" corporate lobbyists predicted, NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. jobs. Instead of cleaning up the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border, water and air pollution have increased. A massive increase of industries has pushed the border ecology to the breaking point. Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary approach. Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine. Citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico is incredible hypocracy. These are yuppie Perot arguments - lets oppose NAFTA for **good** reasons! Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:12227] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
Jim- The bigger picture may change your mind about the protection of the food supply. The U.S. produces and exports the very pesticides that you are worried about reentering the states via Mexican food exports. If we were really worried about protecting the U.S. instead of protecting corporate profits we would ban their production and distribution here. You make it sound like mexican producers are being malicious about their food exports, aiming to harm the U.S. Unfortunatly, these practices also impact the local populations who also eat these foods. Moreover, the growers and workers in the fields are exposed to these dangerous pesticides (imported from the U.S. with safety instructions written in ENGLISH) who die in the fields from overexposure. Agriculture is a very complicated industry, with 5 or so companies controlling well over 1/2 of the global food industry. Many of these operate in Mexico (Cargill, ConAgra, Continental Grain, and Monsanto, just to name a few). So many of these injustices aren't committed by the hands of Mexicans, but by U.S. corporations. Protection of food supplies should be a priority of the U.S. but it isn't NAFTA which is the cause, it is the free reign of our global corporations. Erik Leaver Interhemispheric Resouce Center Jim Cullen What are *good* reasons if not the protection of our food supply? Mexican farmers use pesticides that are banned in the United States and their food safety and environmental protection regulations, where they exist, are largely unenforced (as are their labor laws). The Clinton administration does not even want to include side agreements on labor and the environment in the new round of "free trade" talks. Why should we let foreign producers cut corners, compromise safety regulations and export questionable food into the United States, allowing them to undercut domestic producers who are regulated?
[PEN-L:12231] Slurs
I've been scolded by two persons now for my "Buddha can you spare a dime" joke re: Al Gore, which included implications of Asian-stereotyping. I sincerely regret offending any Buddhists or Asians who may have seen this, but I also think it is possible to be over-sensitive about this stuff and I think this is one of those times. I also shudder to think about the political implications of such a posture, since over-sensitivity tends to backfire and legitimate truly bigoted speech and elevate truly conservative critics of such a position. It reinforces the cultural isolation of the left. I hate to lose any friends over this, assuming I have any to begin with, but I'd rather have a few less friends and live in the world I'm trying to change than dissolve into identity-politics ether. Like Al Gore, I want to be receptive to all denominations -- tens, fifties, hundreds, etc. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12232] SHAIKEN: No 'Fast Track' Without Safety Measures
Wednesday, September 10, 1997 Los Angeles Times No 'Fast Track' Without Safety Measures Trade: Workers and the environment need guarantees up front that they will be part of any presidential deal. By HARLEY SHAIKEN President Clinton wants "fast track" authorization to negotiate trade agreements without congressional amendment. The debate promises to be fierce because the White House resisted congressional Democrats' demands that fast track agreements address labor and environmental matters in a meaningful way. What it all comes down to is whether ordinary Americans win or lose in the changing game of global trade. Fast track proponents such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich and much of the business community maintain that trade agreements should guarantee strong protection for patents and investment and little else. But trade agreements lacking environmental and labor protections will lead to the loss of U.S. jobs and wages, say Democratic House leaders Richard Gephardt and David Bonior, the labor movement and many environmental groups. The debate takes place against a paradoxical backdrop of rosy economic news on television and continued anxiety at the dinner table. The recent UPS strike underscored the importance Americans place on creating full-time jobs that pay well. No wonder. Average wages still lag behind their 1973 peak. Will fast track spur prosperity or will it fuel economic anxiety? To answer this question requires puncturing two myths that have clouded the debate. The first myth is that stressing labor protections means imposing U.S. standards on developing countries that can ill afford them. Just the opposite is the case. Basic labor standards such as the right to join unions and bargain collectively allow workers to shape their own economic future. Increasingly, we have seen income polarization worsen as economic growth strengthens in countries such as Chile--next on the free trade calendar. Recent United Nations data indicate that real wages have plummeted 30% in some Latin American countries. By giving workers the ability to achieve a fairer share of the economic pie, labor rights encourage consumer markets to grow and strengthen democratic values. These rights make it more likely that we will export products to growing markets rather than import lower wage levels. The second myth is that the debate over fast track is a debate between free traders and protectionists. Most people on both sides of this debate agree that expanded trade is potentially beneficial; critics of fast track argue that ordinary people will not reap these benefits without enforceable labor and environmental standards. Ironically, when strong protection of U.S. patents and profits is advocated, commentators overwhelmingly refer to this as "free trade"; when critics call for far more modest guarantees for labor and the environment, this is referred to as "protectionism." Imagine going to Bill Gates and saying, "Bill, we think free trade is important, but guaranteeing intellectual property rights with our trading partners is 'shadow protectionism.' They will see the importance of protecting patents as trade expands." I would hazard a rough guess that Gates might not go along with this argument. Yet this is precisely what U.S. working families are being told, and unlike Bill Gates, they hardly have the resources to wait. We do need good protection for intellectual property rights in trade agreements and, for the very same reasons, we need rules of protection for labor and the environment. There is a new economic reality to trade. The export
[PEN-L:12234] Re: Slurs
Said Max S: [...] over-sensitivity tends to backfire and legitimate truly bigoted speech and elevate truly conservative critics of such a position. It reinforces the cultural isolation of the left. Hear, hear! I hate to lose any friends over this, assuming I have any to begin with, but I'd rather have a few less friends and live in the world I'm trying to change than dissolve into identity-politics ether. By now a whole cornucopia of identity politics jokes must have developed, since satire is the best medicine for that particular runaway madness. Really good ones should be posted here, paid for with our favorite URLs. The sanctimonious flap over Chinagate (as I suppose it must inevitably be called by some) I find painfully hilarious, considering the number of evolving societies this country has turned into police state prisons, kept pre-industrial and otherwise buggered beyond any response during the past blood-soaked century or so. Pray for at least two of the plagues of Egypt, so that our Bible-(t)humping fellow citizens may learn at last the meaning of true violation. valis Occupied America - All lies have the same pedigree -
[PEN-L:12239] Re: Ruth and DSA
Robert Saute, CUNY Grad Center wrote: Glick, an outspoken lesbian and generally independent Council Person, ran a campaign in the lower half of Manhattan, i.e., the mostly white and higher income half of Manhattan. Comrade, you need a geography lesson! I assume you would include the Lower East Side as being part of the "lower half of Manhattan". Is that area "mostly white and higher income"? As for the "upper half of Manhattan", what about those affluent white communities -- both East side and West side -- in the 50's? ... 60's? ... 70's?... 80's's? , etc. Manhattan, like most parts of NYC, is very culturally, socially, and economically diverse. Simple statements like Manhattan Up = Minority Poor Manhattan Down = White Wealthy do not portray the reality very well at all. Jerry
[PEN-L:12241] Don Imus and Kinky Friedman on Mother Teresa
Imus: You were genuinely touched by the death of Princess Diana? Kinky: I was, and I'm a little surprised that you, you know, that you didn't seem to identify with it that heavily, and of course maybe you were still emotionally spent from the Versacci funeral, I don't know, but ah I personally, ah yeah, I.. Imus: ..How about Mother Teresa? Kinky: ..I don't think Mother Teresa was trying to save souls, and Diana was trying to help people, to do good, there's a big difference there. Mother Teresa wanted to save souls for Jesus. Imus: ..Well that's idiotic, I mean Mother Teresa was going around.. Kinky: ..Mother Teresa was friends with Baby Doc Duvalier.. Imus: ..oh well that's.. Kinky: ..I mean I don't want to trash this woman, I mean she died.. Imus: ..well that's idiotic, you're an idiot.. Kinky: ..I'm not running down a.. Imus: ..yes you are.. Kinky: ..four-foot-eight dead person now.. Imus: ..well you're a.. Kinky: ..I'm just saying her interest was to save souls for Jesus, she didn't care.. Imus: ..well Mother Teresa was picking the lepers up out of the gutter and taking them back and fixing them up and and helping them die with some sort of dignity.. Kinky: ..yeah if they.. Imus: ..She didn't give a damn whether they were.. McCord: ..oh absolutely she.. Imus: ..well maybe she did.. Kinky: ..yeah she did, that was the whole thing, how many souls she could save for Jesus. You know, when the Pope sent Mother Teresa out to Los Angeles, he called her a few months later and to see how things were going, and she wasn't there and he got her answering machine and it said, "Hi, this is Terry, I'm not around the phone right now.." Imus: ..You're just an idiot.. Kinky: "..but your call is important to me.."
[PEN-L:12242] Re: New Democrat got her ass kicked
First, I'd like to apologize to anyone who felt offended by the title of my missive -- the intention was to imitate the 'street- or shop-floor talk' rather than an expression of creeping sexism. Second, DSA membership (I'm a card-carrying member as well) does not make anyone immune to criticism. To my knowledge (coming mostly from net postings), Messinger was quite tepid (to say the least) on anything that smacked of class politics. Moreover, according to The Nation she espoused a controversial (again, to say the least) position advocating the arming of NYPD thugs with hollow-point bullets (in plain English, a bullet that rips the human body apart more effectively than regular bullets). That why she was endorsed by the police "unions" in the first place. As Jim Devine aptly observed, "that says something about the state of what Michael Harrington used to call "the democratic Left" these days." Doesn't it? Third, while running a run off per se hardly qualifies as being kicked in the posterior, the fact that Messinger expected to sail smoothly through the Democratic nominations but she did not because of the last minute organizing pressure from NY Haitian groups -- says something about the popular discontent with the business as usual approach espoused by Democrats. In a country where Republicratic political machines thoroughly dominate the electoral process -- forcing a runoff is a victory of grassroots organizing. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:12245] U.S. GREEN GROUPS REJECT NWF PLAN TO NEGOTIATE FAST-TRACK DEMANDS
U.S. GREEN GROUPS REJECT NWF PLAN TO NEGOTIATE FAST-TRACK DEMANDS Inside U.S. Trade, Vol. 15, No. 36, September 5, 1997 U.S. GREEN GROUPS REJECT NWF PLAN TO NEGOTIATE FAST-TRACK DEMANDS A major U.S. environmental organization this week failed to convince other green groups to enter into a process of negotiating environmental demands with the Clinton Administration in return for their support for fast-track negotiating authority. Under a proposal advanced by the National Wildlife Federation, not all environmental demands would have had to be addressed in the fast-track legislation, and instead could have been satisfied m part by other Administration actions. But other U.S. environmental groups told the NWF during a Sept. 2 phone conference that they would not join in making specific environmental demands on the Administration because they do not trust it to deliver on its promises unless they are included in the fast-track bill itself, environmental sources said. As a result, it remains unclear whether NWF on its own will send a letter outlining specific steps the Administration could take within, alongside and apart from the fast-back legislation to gain its backing for the bill, an informed environmental source said. Several other groups which joined NWF in backing NAFTA in 1993 are now poised to join anti-NAFTA environmental forces in opposing fast back if, as they expect, the Administration declines to place environmental objectives on a par with other overall negotiating objectives in the fast-track legislation. Six environmental groups, including NWF and the Sierra Club, set tough standards for the Administration to meet on fast track earlier this year in a letter to Vice President Al Gore, green sources noted. Among the demands made in that Feb. 25 letter was a call for incorporating into fast track "a formal `green' trade negotiating objective which signals that pro-environment trade policies are indeed a `must'" (Inside US Trade, Feb. 28, p 3). Most environmental groups do not want to sway from their insistence that the Administration seek those concrete commitments inside a fast-back bill to advance environmental protection, in spite of requests from U.S. trade officials in recent weeks that they present more specific ideas. The groups do not expect the Administration to meet the yardstick they have advanced, and believe it would be "environmentally irresponsible" to negotiate narrower, specific commitments or pledges from the Administration in trade-related areas outside of the binding fast-track language itself, as NWF had been proposing. If the Administration pushes ahead with a fast track that does not measure up to the standard laid out in the letter to Gore, as they expect will occur, most U.S. environmental groups, including several former NAFTA backers such as the Defenders of Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund and the National Audubon Society, expect to push to defeat fast track. This would send the Administration a message that its failure to pro-actively implement a trade agenda sensitive to environmental concerns is untenable, according to environmental sources. For the past few weeks, though. NWF has sought to build consensus among key players in the environmental community for the idea of seeking specific commitments from the Administration, both in the negotiating objectives included in the fast-track legislation as well as in trade arenas outside fast track. Nearly all groups which previously supported NAFTA are disenchanted with the Administration's subsequent follow-up in overall U.S. trade policy, environmental sources said. As indications of U.S. inattention with regard to NAFTA, they noted the absence of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner at the last meeting of the environmental side accord's main policy-making body. They have also criticized the slow pace of the new NAFTA-related border institutions, the Border Environment Cooperation Council (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank), in approving border-cleanup projects. The use of NAFTA investment provisions to challenge domestic environmental laws has also contributed to groups questioning their previous support, several green representatives said. Copyright, Inside U.S. Trade, All Rights Reserved
[PEN-L:12247] Re: Ruth and DSA
At 12:46 PM 9/10/97 -0700, you wrote: Robert Saute, CUNY Grad Center wrote: Glick, an outspoken lesbian and generally independent Council Person, ran a campaign in the lower half of Manhattan, i.e., the mostly white and higher income half of Manhattan. Comrade, you need a geography lesson! I assume you would include the Lower East Side as being part of the "lower half of Manhattan". Is that area "mostly white and higher income"? As for the "upper half of Manhattan", what about those affluent white communities -- both East side and West side -- in the 50's? ... 60's? ... 70's?... 80's's? , etc. But then comes Harlem Inwood further north or "up-town" - that are mostly Black, Hispanic economically challenged. From that perspective East Side might indeed look like a "lower half" of the island. So strictly (but not idiomatically) speaking, Comrade Saute was correct. I agree though that Manhattan, like most parts of NYC, is very culturally, socially, and economically diverse. Simple statements like Manhattan Up = Minority Poor Manhattan Down = White Wealthy do not portray the reality very well at all. cheers, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:12248] Re: Fire Down Below
I agree with Louis that Stevan Segal's movies generally have a progressive side. I also think that I remember Alex Cockburn describing some environmental hanky panky of Segal's in Humboldt County in California. By the way, one of the kids that I play basketball with took a recent akido class from Segal, whom he found very impressive. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12249] marcha_virtual_12_de_Septiembre (fwd)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 9 23:35 PDT 1997 From: juan manuel gomez gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: marcha_virtual_12_de_Septiembre Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:37:27 -0500 (CDT) English version below Marcha Virtual... Como es de conocimiento de la opinion publica, una comitiva del EZLN marcha a la ciudad de Mexico, desde San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas. El arribo de los Zapatistas al Distrito Federal sera el dia 12 de Septiembre, por lo que convocamos a la sociedad civil internacional a sumarse a la marcha virtual para el dia 12 de septiembre para apoyar los siguientes puntos: - Cumplimiento de los acuerdos de San Andres sobre la mesa de derechos y cultuda indigena y - Desmilitarizacion de mexico Para el dia 12 de septiembre, dia en que entra la marcha zapatista a la ciudad de mexico, la secretaria de seguridad publica esta planeando un aparatoso dispositivo de seguridad en conjunto con inteligencia militar, por lo que se convoca tambien a los manifestantes virtuales a rechazar el uso de sistemas represivos que provocan un ambiente hostil que no ayuda a la busqueda de la paz. Alertamos a la sociedad civil internacional a que se mantenga espectante sobre los dospositivos de seguridad, pues por informaciones de buena fuente, sabemos que habra agentes vestidos de civil y armados, representando una amenaza a la seguridad de todos los participantes en esta marcha por las provocaciones que ellos pueden articular. La marcha virtual pretende ser parte de las actividades que la sociedad civil realiza a favor de la apertura de espacios civiles y pacificos en los que los mexicanos solucionen sus problemas. A todos los que se quieran sumar a esta concentracion virtual a favor de la paz lo pueden hacer enviando un correo electronico el dia 12 de septiembre durante el dia a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] o bien en la pagina de web http://planet.com.mx/~chiapas/marcha.html comite de bienvenida a la marcha zapatista ** MARCH IN CYBERSPACE... It is public knowledge that representatives of the EZLN are marching from San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas to Me'xico City. The Zapatistas will arrive in the capital on September 12, for that reason, we call on "civil society" at international level, to join the march through cyberspace on the 12th supporting the following demands: _fulfillment of the San Andre's Accords on indigenous rights and culture. and _ The demilitarization of Mexico. On september 12, date that the Zapatistas will arrive in Mexico City, the Ministry of Public Security is planning to launch into action security mechanisms combined with military intelligence, and for that reason, we call on those who will support the cyberspace march, to also condemn the repressive systems that provoke a hostile environment that does not help in the establishment of peace. We request international "civil society" to remain alert about repressive mechanisms, since through very reliable sources, we know there will be agents dressed in civilian clothing yet armed, presenting a real danger to all the participants in this march due to the provocations they might cause. The cyberspace march hopes to be part of the activities the "civil society" will take on as part of opening civilian peaceful spaces where Mexicans can resolve their own problems. To all who wish to join us on this march through cyberspace for peace, we invite to send an e-mail message on September 12th,to the following addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to the web page: http://planet.com.mx/~chiapas/marcha.html Zapatista March Welcoming Committee translated by: NAP
[PEN-L:12228] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
I'm reposting this ezine issue on good and bad reasons to oppose NAFTA and Fast tract. The Progressive Response is a publication of Foreign Policy In Focus, a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. Erik Leaver Interhemispheric Resouce Center THE PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE Vol. 1, No. 4 Tom Barry, editor ***Issues of Debate: Assessing the Impact of NAFTA*** Trade Balance Tactics Opponents of NAFTA, on both the left and the right, cite the current U.S. trade deficit with Mexico as a sign that NAFTA has negatively impacted the United States. It is certainly true that the U.S. now imports more goods from Mexico than it exports to Mexico. In 1996 the United States suffered a $16.2 billion trade deficit with Mexico, whereas in 1993 it experienced a $1.7 billion surplus. Although those concerned about unemployment, poverty, and low wage levels in the United States should examine the state of U.S. trade in their attempt to find the causes of economic instability and job losses at home, they should not adopt the dogma that a trade deficit with Mexico means more unemployment in the United States. When considering the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, it should be recognized that, while Mexico in 1995 and 1996 did export more to the United States than it imported from this country, overall trade with Mexico has expanded substantially since 1993. Despite the economic crisis in Mexico, U.S. exports to Mexico have expanded by more than a third during the first three years of NAFTA. It is not that the United States is exporting less to Mexico than it did before, only that U.S. imports from Mexico have increased faster than U.S. exports to Mexico. It would be wrong to attribute the present status of U.S.-Mexico trade balance primarily to NAFTA for the following reasons: * Overall U.S.-Mexico trade was on the increase even before NAFTA. * In the 1982-1991 period the U.S. experienced a persistent trade deficit with Mexico. * U.S. export growth to Mexico is largely related to the state of the Mexican economy. * The 1994 economic crisis in Mexico--in which consumption dropped 15%--helps explain why U.S. exports to Mexico did not rise as rapidly as previously projected. * The steady GDP increase in the U.S. has created increased demand for goods and supplies, boosting the level of Mexican exports to the United States. Given that the balance of trade between Mexico and the U.S. is closely to the state of the economy in each country, it is likely that the current trade status will change. Consequently, arguments in favor or against NAFTA based primarily on the size of the deficit or surplus are unlikely to stand the test of time. Indeed, as the Mexican economy slowly recuperates, its trade surplus is falling dramatically. The latest figures from Mexico show that its total imports have increased by 27 percent while exports have also increased although more slowly--but still at a healthy rate of 15 percent. Those NAFTA opponents in the United States who point to the 1995-96 trade deficit with Mexico may be left on shaky ground in a year or two as that deficit turns into a surplus. Similarly, more caution is needed in basing one's opposition to NAFTA on reported or calculated job losses. For starters, it should be recognized that the United States has experienced both relatively low unemployment and economic growth since the NAFTA took effect. Opposing NAFTA on the basis of the state of traditional economic indicators--GDP growth, unemployment, trade balance, etc.--is a difficult argument to make, especially at this time of comparatively good economic health in the United States. There are two approaches to the job loss discussion that should be regarded with caution. The first is the facile adoption of a Commerce Department's multiplier that holds that $1 billion in increased exports creates 20,000 new U.S. jobs. By applying this multiplier to the trade deficit (which implies that all Mexican imports take U.S. jobs and that this deficit is due to NAFTA), the Economic Policy Institute concluded that the increase in the U.S. trade deficit since 1993 has cost the United States 251,000 jobs. As noted previously, this approach fails to recognize that, while the United States may be experiencing a deficit with Mexico, its exports continue to increase. Weintraub calls all the manipulations using export/job multipliers "primitive arithmetic," pointing out that 1) merchandise trade is only one part of the balance of payments and does not include the export of U.S. services, 2) imports do not automatically translate into job losses, 3) decreased Mexican exports would decrease Mexico's ability to purchase U.S. products, thereby adversely affecting U.S. jobs, 4) as a global trader, the U.S. should expect deficits with some countries and surpluses with others, and 5) a substantial part of North American trade is not in final products but in components of final products. It is
[PEN-L:12233] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
Erik, I agree with you that the problem is global corporations, and we should ban the production of harmful chemicals. I certainly am no defender of the chemical producers, who also have managed to shield themselves from liability for their exports. Nor am I a defender of the agricorporations that threaten to monopolize the U.S. food supply. But another way to curtail the use of dangerous pesticides -- and to interest U.S. consumers in the cause -- is to insist that food exported to the United States is free of pesticides and other toxic chemicals. I don't think Mexican producers necessarily are being malicious, but they are using chemicals whose use is illegal in the U.S. (and they also use underpaid laborers) to produce food and export it into the United States at lower cost than U.S. producers, who (are at least supposed to) abide by our regulations. We practically cannot force Mexico to protect its domestic food supply or its farm workers, but we should assert our right to protect our own food supply, as the European Union is trying to do. The global corporations are working to take away that right through "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, MAI and the World Trade Organization. NAFTA is a symptom of the free reign of global corporations. I don't see why we should not fight its spread. If large-scale Mexican producers cannot use pesticides on food for export to the U.S., maybe they will scale it back for food destined for the domestic market. We could prohibit the production of dangerous pesticides in the U.S., but we can't prohibit their production elsewhere, and the global corporations will fill that demand (which they admittedly created) somehow. Ultimately, the Mexican people have to demand the enforcement of food and labor safety laws. We should support them where possible. But we should not accept tainted food in the meantime. -- Jim Cullen Jim- The bigger picture may change your mind about the protection of the food supply. The U.S. produces and exports the very pesticides that you are worried about reentering the states via Mexican food exports. If we were really worried about protecting the U.S. instead of protecting corporate profits we would ban their production and distribution here. You make it sound like mexican producers are being malicious about their food exports, aiming to harm the U.S. Unfortunatly, these practices also impact the local populations who also eat these foods. Moreover, the growers and workers in the fields are exposed to these dangerous pesticides (imported from the U.S. with safety instructions written in ENGLISH) who die in the fields from overexposure. Agriculture is a very complicated industry, with 5 or so companies controlling well over 1/2 of the global food industry. Many of these operate in Mexico (Cargill, ConAgra, Continental Grain, and Monsanto, just to name a few). So many of these injustices aren't committed by the hands of Mexicans, but by U.S. corporations. Protection of food supplies should be a priority of the U.S. but it isn't NAFTA which is the cause, it is the free reign of our global corporations. Erik Leaver Interhemispheric Resouce Center THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST James M. Cullen, Editor P.O. Box 150517, Austin, Texas 78715-0517 Phone: 512-447-0455 Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://www.eden.com/~reporter
[PEN-L:12246] Re: Ruth and DSA
Robert: Thanks for the infor on Ruth Messinger. As to BTW, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think Messinger got support from the police unions. I got that info from The Nation, if I rember correctly -- I can verify that when I get home. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:12250] People's Summit on APEC '97 (fwd)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 21:50:48 -0700 Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Larry Kuehn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: People's Summit on APEC '97 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The People's Summit on APEC '97 has a web site at www.vcn.bc.ca/summit which has on it the program for the week of events and information about registering. The People's Summit can be reached by email at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Full information about the summit will be posted to this and other listservs later this week. Larry Kuehn, Director [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research and Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] B.C. Teachers' Federation Fax: (604) 871-2294 http://www.bctf.bc.ca
[PEN-L:12253] Re: Slurs
Max, I know this apology is sincere, but I am bothered by your choice of words. It is not just a matter of offending Buddhists or Asians, it is the principle of feeding off of racial or ethnic or religious stereotyping that is at issue. Whites should also be offended at racism and men at sexism. Apologizing only to members of a victimized group as if it is only their possible offense you should be concerned about suggests that those who are not (in this instance) Buddhists or Asians would or should not be bothered or offended. You depreciate your apology by suggesting that the problem isn't actually your offensive casual humor but rather it is the super-sensitivity or their lack of humor of those who express their displeasure. But this is not a matter of being PC. We live in a society in which ethnic and racial stereotyping, even in jest when no offense is intended, lends itself to perpetuating the divisions between people and feeds a climate in which those do who act with malice and hatred feel emboldened to express their venomous views and to ACT on them. The consequences may be only hurt feelings, but in too many circumstances they are far more serious. I don't see how we fight "truly bigoted speech" or behavior rooted in hate by playing around the edges of that bigotry. I don't believe the choice is between "identity politics" and your ability to be popular or you access to the world you want to change. Fighting bigotry is not like fighting forest fires. You can't reduce the amount of prejudice in the world by setting backfires that feed on prejudice. I don't think the left breaks out of its cultural isolation by pandering to the various prejudices found in the wider population. How can this build unity and break down stereotypes that are exploited by capitalism to keep us divided? I hope that it would be a mark of friendship, comradeship and respect, not ridicule or condemnation, if someone who cares about the same things you do brings an offensive remark to your attention. In solidarity, Michael At 09:12 AM 9/10/97 -0700, Max B. Sawicky wrote: I've been scolded by two persons now for my "Buddha can you spare a dime" joke re: Al Gore, which included implications of Asian-stereotyping. I sincerely regret offending any Buddhists or Asians who may have seen this, but I also think it is possible to be over-sensitive about this stuff and I think this is one of those times. I also shudder to think about the political implications of such a posture, since over-sensitivity tends to backfire and legitimate truly bigoted speech and elevate truly conservative critics of such a position. It reinforces the cultural isolation of the left. I hate to lose any friends over this, assuming I have any to begin with, but I'd rather have a few less friends and live in the world I'm trying to change than dissolve into identity-politics ether. Like Al Gore, I want to be receptive to all denominations -- tens, fifties, hundreds, etc. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12252] Re: Fire Down Below
Louis: I read somewhere --and I don't know whether it is true or not-- that Seagal demanded the right to say anything he wanted at the end of his Alaska film, with no producer censorship, as a condition for making the flick. As you probably know, he used those ten minutes to denounce multinational corporate destruction of the environment. I haven't seen his latest, but look forward to it. I went to see "Above the Law" with my brother who is a black belt, "this guy has some GREAT moves", he said, and we staggered out in a state of shock at the powerful denunciation of CIA drug trafficing in Central American in support of the Contras --AND the explicit connection to their earlier actions in Indochina. It was a little like watching a revealing documentary on what was going on at the time. While he might do the job better with some advice from us :-) there is no doubt that he is reaching one hell of a lot of people with at least part of what they need to hear and see. Harry On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: There is a genuine integrity to Steven Seagal's body of work. While the critical establishment is finally giving Jackie Chan the acclaim that he richly deserves as martial artist/film star, isn't it about time that we recognize Seagal for the politically progressive trail-blazer that he is? Make way, Oliver Stone, for a genuine rebel--one who is at home delivering class-struggle speeches or karate kicks to a villain's teeth. In his latest film "Fire Down Below," Seagal plays Jack Taggart, an EPA inspector who goes undercover in rural Kentucky to find out who has killed his partner. His partner was investigating toxic spills. His cover is as a volunteer church worker who repairs the porches of congregation members. The pastor is played by Levon Helm, formerly of the band called The Band. It turns out that a most reactionary member of the bourgeoisie, Orin Hanner (Kris Kristofferson), is being paid big money to hide toxic waste in the hills and waters of the beautiful Appalachian countryside, and the chemicals are killing fish and making children sick. Orin Jr.(Brad Hunt) runs the day-to-day operations in the hills while his dad sits in the corporate headquarters like an Appalachian version of the rotten businessman J.R. Ewing on the old TV show "Dallas". Now in his sixties, Kristofferson has adapted well to villainous roles. He was outstanding as the sadist cop in John Sayles "Lone Star" and equals that performance here. Orin Jr. sends out one goon squad after another to kill Seagal, but he always manages to defeat them with well-placed kicks and punches. The charm of watching Seagal in action has a lot to do with his growing middle-aged paunch which many cinema fans can identify with. Seagal wears long coats throughout the film which tastefully disguise his love handles, but you can discern their contour if you look carefully. Not only does he have lethal extremities, he is also cunning and lethal behind the wheel. One of Hanner's thugs tries to run him off the road, but Seagal dodges him at the edge of a cliff and the would-be killer drives to his death. This is an action hero par excellence: a combination of the Roadrunner, Bruce Lee and--best of all--Big Bill Heywood. As soon as he returns to town after the car chase, he walks into the middle of a church service and mounts the pulpit. He tells the congregation that there are rich people who are trying to poison them. Their profits come at the expense of the town's children or the beauty of the environment. It is time to stand up to these greedy businessmen and fight for justice, says Seagal with a steely glint in his eye. Highly recommended: Five hammer-and-sickles Louis Proyect Harry Cleaver Department of Economics University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 478-8427 (off) (512) 475-8535 Fax:(512) 471-3510 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cleaver homepage: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html Chiapas95 homepage: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html Accion Zapatista homepage: http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/
[PEN-L:12251] WWW at UCLA
The New York Times September 3, 1997 AT UCLA, MIXED REACTION TO WEB-BASED COURSES By Steven R. Knowlton When students at the University of California at Los Angeles call up the World Wide Web home page for a class on 20th-century American literature this school year, they will have a wealth of choices, including, the professor hopes, clicking on an audio button to hear an aria from an opera mentioned in a Willa Cather novel. But students taking another professor's course on Milton will find a bare-bones Web page, not much more than the course title and a reading list. Professor Thomas Wortham, the chairman of the English department who is planning the more elaborate page, and Jonathan F.S. Post, a former chairman of the department whose page is being created without his input, are repre- sentative of the reactions to UCLA's announcement in mid-July that it will make home pages available for every course in the College of Letters and Science by Sept. 25, the start of the fall term. At the very least, that means the university will provide students with a plain- text syllabus and an online chat room -- a cyberspace spot where students can talk to one another in some 1,000 courses. At its most elaborate, the Web pages may use graphics and audio and video snippets to dress up lecture notes and provide links to take students to other relevant Web sites. Profes- sors can choose to participate or not in creating and maintaining their class pages. Although UCLA is believed to be the first major campus in the country to require home pages for so many courses, its action represents a growing trend in higher education to integrate the Web and the more encompassing Internet into class work. But while many faculty members are cruising into cyberspace with enthusi- asm, confident that they can make learning more rewarding, others are more reluctant to trade in conventional teaching tools for what they and other critics fear is just the latest fad in higher education. Wortham said he was looking forward to offering an enhanced Web page. He could round up the tape players, slide projectors and other academic hard- ware "and lug them into class," he said, but he acknowledged that "too often that does not happen." Post, on the other hand, said he did not mind that the university was putting his syllabus on the Web because "my syllabus is not my course." But he added, "The greater concern that most of us would feel is that technology will be driving the teaching." He also said he feared that "funding will be going in that direction and away from the classroom." Much of the impetus for Web-based learning is financial. Many college ad- ministrators regard Web pages as effective marketing and recruiting tools. In May, a new college guide ranking the 100 most-wired campuses was pub- lished by Yahoo, a popular Internet search service. In that survey, UCLA did not fare well against many other California campuses because it had relatively few courses with Web pages. Wortham said UCLA's decision to build Web pages for all its courses had been made before the Yahoo ranking and had been driven, in part, by the need to justify a new computer fee that students are paying this fall. "The idea was if students could see that the money was being utilized in the classroom, maybe they would go for it," the professor said. The fee -- $10 for each humanities course and $14 for each science course -- was discussed in the last academic year, but many students objected, saying that their courses did not have Web pages and that they should not have to pay for services they were not receiving. Web pages are also regarded as weapons with which departments can defend their own domain and budgets by attracting students to fill courses. "Departments are increasingly required to pay for themselves," Post said. "Web pages seem to be a way of making a department appear to be sort of with it instead of in the dark ages." Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the push toward more Web-based learning, some educators say, is that computer technology is beginning to replace, rather than merely enhance, some of what professors do in the class- room. Although UCLA is not planning major changes in its teaching strategies, other colleges and universities are. The president of Northwestern University, Henry S. Bienen, said he expected teaching on the Web to soon replace at least some of the lecture components of basic introductory courses. That would, theoretically at least, free up pro- fessors to conduct more small-group sessions, he said. At the University of Oregon, the provost, John T. Moseley, said he was looking forward to turning the conventional format of three lectures a week into perhaps a single lecture plus Web lectures and discussions, as well as other teaching sessions in informal settings. Such changes could come in the
[PEN-L:12244] Re: Ruth and DSA
Comrade Levy makes the important point that aggregates can be misleading, that shorthand can be misunderstood. He is absolutely correct that the Lower East Side is NOT mostly white and higher income. Nor for that matter is Chinatown white and high income. My larger point was that Glick gave up on the largely minority and poor sections of Manhattan that make up the "upper half" of the island probably because she saw them as uninterested in her largely social issue campaign. The bohemian character of much of the Lower East Side makes it an interesting case. I don't know how much campaigning she did (or support that she received) there, but did she campaign against poverty and racism there? (Not a rhetorical question, I really don't know.) Regarding geography. Comrade Levy, only an overheated polemicist or the cartographically impaired would place the 50s, 60s in the "upper half" of Manhattan. Only a sophist would include 70s and 80s in the northern half of the borough. Of course, I've met more than one Lower East Sider who prided him/herself on not venturing north of 14th street. From the not very hip portion of Upstate Manhattan I remain, Robert Saute [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Gerald Levy wrote: Robert Saute, CUNY Grad Center wrote: Glick, an outspoken lesbian and generally independent Council Person, ran a campaign in the lower half of Manhattan, i.e., the mostly white and higher income half of Manhattan. Comrade, you need a geography lesson! I assume you would include the Lower East Side as being part of the "lower half of Manhattan". Is that area "mostly white and higher income"? As for the "upper half of Manhattan", what about those affluent white communities -- both East side and West side -- in the 50's? ... 60's? ... 70's?... 80's's? , etc. Manhattan, like most parts of NYC, is very culturally, socially, and economically diverse. Simple statements like Manhattan Up = Minority Poor Manhattan Down = White Wealthy do not portray the reality very well at all. Jerry
[PEN-L:12243] Fire Down Below
There is a genuine integrity to Steven Seagal's body of work. While the critical establishment is finally giving Jackie Chan the acclaim that he richly deserves as martial artist/film star, isn't it about time that we recognize Seagal for the politically progressive trail-blazer that he is? Make way, Oliver Stone, for a genuine rebel--one who is at home delivering class-struggle speeches or karate kicks to a villain's teeth. In his latest film "Fire Down Below," Seagal plays Jack Taggart, an EPA inspector who goes undercover in rural Kentucky to find out who has killed his partner. His partner was investigating toxic spills. His cover is as a volunteer church worker who repairs the porches of congregation members. The pastor is played by Levon Helm, formerly of the band called The Band. It turns out that a most reactionary member of the bourgeoisie, Orin Hanner (Kris Kristofferson), is being paid big money to hide toxic waste in the hills and waters of the beautiful Appalachian countryside, and the chemicals are killing fish and making children sick. Orin Jr.(Brad Hunt) runs the day-to-day operations in the hills while his dad sits in the corporate headquarters like an Appalachian version of the rotten businessman J.R. Ewing on the old TV show "Dallas". Now in his sixties, Kristofferson has adapted well to villainous roles. He was outstanding as the sadist cop in John Sayles "Lone Star" and equals that performance here. Orin Jr. sends out one goon squad after another to kill Seagal, but he always manages to defeat them with well-placed kicks and punches. The charm of watching Seagal in action has a lot to do with his growing middle-aged paunch which many cinema fans can identify with. Seagal wears long coats throughout the film which tastefully disguise his love handles, but you can discern their contour if you look carefully. Not only does he have lethal extremities, he is also cunning and lethal behind the wheel. One of Hanner's thugs tries to run him off the road, but Seagal dodges him at the edge of a cliff and the would-be killer drives to his death. This is an action hero par excellence: a combination of the Roadrunner, Bruce Lee and--best of all--Big Bill Heywood. As soon as he returns to town after the car chase, he walks into the middle of a church service and mounts the pulpit. He tells the congregation that there are rich people who are trying to poison them. Their profits come at the expense of the town's children or the beauty of the environment. It is time to stand up to these greedy businessmen and fight for justice, says Seagal with a steely glint in his eye. Highly recommended: Five hammer-and-sickles Louis Proyect
[PEN-L:12240] Lo lo lo lo Lola . . .
psychotherapy/radical politics run by one Fred Newman. Their presidential candidate last go-round was Lola Fulani who does have some following in the That would be Lenora, BTW, though I much prefer Lola, or for that matter Lola Folana. Must be the borscht in your veins, or maybe some flashback to The Kinks. As testament to Lenora-Lola's erratic nature, she took some of her folks into the Perot's Reform Party and may still be there, for all I know. I agree with the rest of your post. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12238] Ruth and DSA
Ruth Messinger, indeed, used to be a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. She remains close enough to DSA to attend their fundraisers, but she quit DSA, and here I think she has been explicit about this, to distance herself from the Left. The New York local endorsed her campaign, although there were moves afoot to endorse Sharpton by some and no one by others. Despite its endorsement, the local did nothing organizationally. The lack of action may have resulted from Messinger's absense of interest in mobilizing voters. Or, perhaps, DSAers may have been turned off by her attack on City workers (not cops). She decided in what seems like a patently opportunistic ploy for NY Times coverage to solve the problem of funding public education by increasing the work week of municipal employees and jettisoning the sabaticals of Board of Ed. hires. DSAers were not the only ones to lose interest in Borough President Messinger. Her core constituency of left-leaning liberals did not vote. Hopes for Messinger had at one time been quite high because in part she had the best network of grassroots supporters in the City. Over the years she had built up a fairly impressive cadre of campaigners, but many of them abandoned ship when they felt that she wasn't interested in their support. Her office staff has been demoralized for a long time, and it is hard to believe her campaign staff feels anything but devastated. Ruth moved to the center to capture more votes, and I'm sure she had the polling data to tell her it was the politically "intelligent" thing to do. Unfortunately for her, she became a hollow candidate winning the hollow vote, I guess. A similar phenomenon occurred with Deborah Glick who was soundly beaten in the race for Manhattan Borough President by C. Virginia Fields. Glick, an outspoken lesbian and generally independent Council Person, ran a campaign in the lower half of Manhattan, i.e., the mostly white and higher income half of Manhattan. Glick was probably the most left of the candidates for Borough President, but she made the "rational" decision to spend her resources in the socially liberal-friendly half of Manhattan. Glick's problem was not so much that she moved to the center but that she gave up on a better part of the City. BTW, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think Messinger got support from the police unions. Robert Saute [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12236] Re: New Democrat got her ass kicked
BTW, as a non-Noo Yawker, I don't know much at all about Al Sharpton. But his politics sure looks bad. I bet if he beat Giuliani he wouldn't be allowed to run the city. Is Big MAC or a similar organization still running the show? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Sharpton vote is interesting for what it says about the rising militancy of the black population. Sharpton is a demagogue but his speeches are much more radical than anything coming from the Messinger camp. Not only did Messinger have ties to the DSA, so did Dinkins. The problem is that these ties meant very little. Both Dinkins and Messinger are beholden to Wall Street Banks, real estate and law firms. Sharpton used to run as the candidate of the New Alliance Party, a psychotherapy/radical politics run by one Fred Newman. Their presidential candidate last go-round was Lola Fulani who does have some following in the black community. Sharpton was a paid informant for the FBI in the 1970s and does come across as a self-promoter, a left-wing version of Don King. Sharpton has never built a left-wing organization but preaches at an assembly hall once a week that is closed to the white press. The explanation for Sharpton should be obvious. He is the beneficiary of a vacuum of leadership in the black community. Some black militants were murdered and others were co-opted. In his grotesque manner, Sharpton in some ways represents the best of what black leadership in New York amounts to nowadays. Whenever there is an egregious outbreak of police brutality, you can count on him to call for a demonstration and indictment of the cops. He has been in the forefront of the struggle around Abner Louima. Louis Proyect
[PEN-L:12235] New Democrat got her ass kicked
Even though I think that "Buddha can you spare a dime?" is funny and NOT impolite (a.k.a. "politically incorrect"), I do not like the advocacy of violence against women which is implicit in the above title. (I do not think that Wojtek was advocating such violence, BTW, but rather that he wasn't thinking seriously about the title he gave his missive.) (BTW, All money-changers should be driven out of all temples, Buddhist or otherwise!) Concerning the fact that Ruth Messinger did not get a sufficient plurality in the NYC Democratic Primary to avoid a run-off against Al (the Rev.) Sharpton, Wojtek writes: I just heard on the news that the New York City's New Democrat candidate against Giulliani (what's her face?) got her ass kicked and failed to win her party's nomination. ... As for New Democrats, they also represent white suburbanite and corporate only -- yet they hypocritically pretend to represent the poor, disadvantaged, etc. ... Being forced to run in a run-off isn't exactly being kicked in the butt. More importantly, if I remember correctly, Ruth Messinger was endorsed and supported by the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which later took over the New American Movement and became the Democratic Socialists of America. She might have even been a member. Is she a member of DSA? Was she ever, or was she simply endorsed by that group? Is she still endorsed by DSA? If she's a New Democrat and endorsed by DSA (or even a member), that says something about the state of what Michael Harrington used to call "the democratic Left" these days. BTW, as a non-Noo Yawker, I don't know much at all about Al Sharpton. But his politics sure looks bad. I bet if he beat Giuliani he wouldn't be allowed to run the city. Is Big MAC or a similar organization still running the show? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:12226] New Democrat got her ass kicked
I just heard on the news that the New York City's New Democrat candidate against Giulliani (what's her face?) got her ass kicked and failed to win her party's nomination. The stumbling block was that she was endorsed by the police "unions" and that support backfired after the recent revelations of NYPD use of torture. That sounds like music to my ears, because while I disagree with Republican politics, I cannot blame them for hypocrisy -- they do not hide that they represent white suburbanite and corporate interests only. As for New Democrats, they also represent white suburbanite and corporate only -- yet they hypocritically pretend to represent the poor, disadvantaged, etc. That makes them more dangerous than GOP, because they sing the song their constituents want to hear to get elected, and then pull a clinton. It looks like for more years of Giulliani -- which might not be a bad thing after all, beacuse it will be a lot easier to mobilise people against that cockroach than against a "bleeding heart" New Democrat. Any comments? wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:12229] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 RELEASED TODAY: The revised seasonally adjusted annual rate of productivity change in the second quarter of 1997 was 2.7 percent in both the business and the nonfarm business sectors. In both sectors, productivity growth was stronger than in the first quarter of 1997 The second-quarter productivity increases were greater than first reported because output was revised upward and the increases in hours were revised down Looking at its own data as well as studies by private economists, BLS found in a new report that the choice of a college major and the quality of the college itself appear to strongly influence a worker's lifetime earnings. The links between education, employment, and earnings have grown stronger in the last 15 or 20 years, BLS said. In its "Report on the American Workforce," BLS offers analyses on three major labor market issues: education and work; comparisons of compensation and prices in different regions and metropolitan areas; and employer-provided pension plans (Daily Labor Report, page A-6). The number of job cuts announced by businesses declined in August and should hit a decade low in 1997, according to a report by Challenger, Gray Christmas, Inc., an outplacement firm that tracks job-cut announcements (Daily Labor Report, page A-9). Richard Harwood, writing on the op. ed. page of The Washington Post, points out that -- although the want-ad pages of the Post show that the job market is tight, the Wall Street Journal points out that companies are raiding one another for workers, and the New York Times reports that blue-collar jobs expanded to the greatest number in history -- Demographics magazine notes that, "One in five American men doesn't earn enough to lift a family of four out of poverty " Harwood says, "There's work to be had -- and an awful lot of people who aren't being educated to do it" Roughly 80 percent of the jobs in the American economy don't require a four-year college degree, and that situation is not expected to change significantly anytime soon. But many of these jobs do require basic skills that vast numbers of high school students are not getting. These skills -- including math and reading comprehension, oral communication and word processing on computers -- can be taught in high school, Ivy League scholars Richard Murnane and Frank Levy estimate. They would add enough value to a high school diploma to command a wage of $30,000 a year or more USA Today's "Economic Indicators" graph (page 3B) projects that producer prices for August, to be released Sept. 12, will be up 0.3 percent, in contrast to a minus 0.1 percent for July. The consumer price index for August, to be released Sept. 16, will increase 0.3 percent compared with 0.2 percent for July. DUE OUT TOMORROW: Mass Layoffs in June 1997
