From bright_crow at mindspring.com Fri Aug 6 08:39:54 2004 From: bright_crow at mindspring.com (Mike Shell) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 08:39:54 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [saymaListserv] SEYM Peace & Social Concerns Website Message-ID: <30887926.1091795994463.JavaMail.root@wamui07.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Friends, Please visit the Eighth Month update of http://seympeace.org, the website of the Peace and Social Concerns Committee of the Southeastern Yearly Meeting. Blessed Be, Michael. From nc_stereoman at charter.net Sun Aug 8 22:32:52 2004 From: nc_stereoman at charter.net (Steve Livingston) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:32:52 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] a meeting without a clerk Message-ID: <4116AA14.8777.78AA889@localhost> Evan Richardson's two years of service as clerk of Asheville Friends Meeting have elapsed, and our Meeting has not yet discerned who is her successor. I wonder if any other SAYMA Friends have had the experience of being in a Meeting without a clerk, and if you would like to share that experience with me, or with the listserv. Thanks! Steve From jhminshall at comcast.net Wed Aug 11 10:52:54 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:52:54 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: Money Sent Home By Legal and Illegal Immigrants and Refugees: A Social Concern of Many Meetings and Churches Message-ID: Dear Friends, I recently had a conversation with a Friend about money sent home by refugees and immigrants -- whether legal or illegal -- and its importance to the country of origin. His comment was that "it couldn't be much". I said, from my years of work in resettling refugees and learning the economics of refugee and immigrant resettlement, that it was a lot more than most people imagined -- often half of the money earned. An article in last week's issue of The Economist magazine confirms my thoughts. (see The Economist, July 31 '04, pg. 66) The article indicates that these payments, "remittances" to use the English term, "provide more than a quarter of GDP for Jordan, Lesotho, Nicaragua, Haiti and Tonga and more than 5% for many other countries. In 36 countries, remittances exceed all other imports of capital combined, public and private. Recent research ties rising remittances directly to increasingly GDP and reducing poverty. Another study finds a positive link between remittances and the probability that children stay in school. At this year's G8 Summit rich world politicians noted the importance of remittances in financing small businesses, education and housing in recipient countries. As a source of finance remittances have several advantages. Unlike development loans, they do not come with a liability or an obligation to pay interest. They are sent directly to the people for whom they are intended and thus cannot be squandered by governments (or corrupt leaders). And they are a more stable funding source than foreign direct investment -- and even more stable than portfolio flows. India, the largest recipient country, abolished taxes on remittances several years ago. Columbia followed in January, and Mexico, the second largest recipient country, has made sending money home far easier for its many citizens working in America by issuing an identification card that even illegal immigrants can use to open an American bank account. Brazil and Guatemala will soon introduce similar cards." As to the total amount of such funds, "According to a recent study by Dilip Ratha, an economist at The World Bank, remittances amounted to $93 billion last year. This is more than poor countries received from aid or capital markets. The real number, Mr Ratha says, may well be twice as high -- making remittances greater than foreign direct investment and in some countries, more valuable than exports." I have written recently about the positive effects on the US economy of encouraging more refugees and immigrants to settle here. In the first place, they do not add to world population growth figures as they, as well as foreign adopted children, have already been counted in their countries of origin. Second, they will substantially delay the very serious problem of flat or declining levels of population in the US which would otherwise, within fifty years, begin to reduce our level of tax collection and thus decrease the amount and quality of social and human services which can be provided such as Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Early Childhood Programs like Headstart and Veteran's Benefits. Third, the US and the other developed countries in the world can better handle the well-known negative effects of population growth on the environment than can less developed countries. Fourth, newly arrived refugees and immigrants do not consume material goods in the same manner or at the same level as we who are born to relative affluence. Their patterns of consumption were formed in a much poorer economy and so they do not reach the level of consumption of the US born population until the second or even the third generation after their big move. As environmentally concerned Friends say, they "leave a smaller footprint" on the environment than the rest of us, at least for awhile. Fifth, they often take jobs and perform work that those of us born in the US will not do even if we are laid off from our regular work, and thus they fill a very real employment need that even the labor unions cannot address. Any comments from you would be appreciated. Best Regards, Janet From losborne at cn.edu Wed Aug 11 14:17:12 2004 From: losborne at cn.edu (Larry Osborne) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:17:12 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Good vs. bad capitalism Message-ID: Friends, There has been some conversation on this list lamenting the negative opinion many modern Quakers alledgely hold about business. Another way to frame the discussion is about what kinds of business are good and what kinds are bad. E.F. Shumacher took this approach. Rather than uncritically condemning or embracing capitalism, he tried to discern what scale of economic endeavor was best, with "best" defined as community health rather than size per se or the wealth of corporate executives and investors. In my mind, my father owned a "good" business, one that provided support for my family and those of 6-8 other people. He lived in the community in which his business was located and worked tirelessly on behalf of the common good through various groups like Rotary International. In Appalachia where I live, it is easy to see examples of "bad" business that extracts wealth from the region, destroys the land and viewscape, and pays back little in terms of wages or taxes for local social infrastructure like schools. A historic study around 1980 found that the extent of absentee ownership of wealth in Appalachia was inversely related to a county's well-being in terms of such measures as poverty, income, and social capital. Here is a provocative article by David Harvey critiquing current trends in today's business world. While it may appear negative to business, I see it as trying to discern a happy medium between greed and impoverishment. Hope you find it informative. Peace like a river, Guy Larry Osborne "Neo-Liberalism And The Restoration Of Class Power" > Submitted to Portside by > > David Harvey > > With every other justification for the invasion of Iraq > discredited, President Bush has increasingly resorted > to the argument that at least Iraq is free. "Freedom," > he says, "is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman > in this world" and "as the greatest power on earth we > have an obligation to help the spread of freedom." > But, as Matthew Arnold long ago argued, "freedom is a > great horse to ride but to ride somewhere." So where > are the Iraqis supposed to ride their horse of freedom? > > The US answer was spelled out in September 2003, when > Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional > Authority, promulgated decrees that included the full > privatization of the economy, full ownership rights by > foreign firms of Iraqi businesses, the right of foreign > firms to take profits abroad and the elimination of > nearly all trade barriers. The orders applied to all > areas of the economy, including public services, > banking and finance, the media, manufacturing, > services, transportation and construction. Only oil was > exempt. A regressive tax system much in favor with > conservatives in the US known as "the flat tax" was > also imposed. The right to strike was outlawed and > unionization banned in key sectors. > > This amounts to the imposition of a particular kind of > state apparatus - called neo-liberal - on Iraq. > Interestingly, the first case of neo-liberalization > occurred thirty years earlier in Chile. In the wake of > a violent US supported coup by General Pinochet against > the democratically elected Salvador Allende in > September 1973, US economic advisors espousing the neo- > liberal doctrines of Milton Friedmann went to Chile to > help set up an almost identical state structure to that > now decreed for Iraq. > > The era that separates the violence in Chile and Iraq > has seen the creation of neo-liberal states - > capitalist dream regimes as the Economist calls them - > all around the world by mixes of coercion and consent. > Britain's Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader > freely to embrace free-market fundamentalism when > elected in the spring of 1979. She attacked trade > union power, diminished the welfare state and reduced > taxes. She sought privatization, to liberate > entrepreneurial energies, and argued that social well- > being depended upon personal responsibility and not the > state. "There is no such thing as society," she > famously said, "only individuals and their families." > She accomplished all this by democratic means. > "Economics are the method," she said, "but the object > is to change the soul." And change it she did. > > In the fall of 1979, Paul Volcker, then Chair of the > Federal Reserve under President Carter, shifted the > target of monetary policy in the US from full > employment to curbing inflation. He raised interest > rates to a very high level and plunged the US into > recession. In the event of any conflict between the > integrity of the financial system and the welfare of > the population, he signaled, the former interest would > prevail. President Reagan, taking office in 1981, took > the necessary political steps to consolidate Volcker's > move. He attacked union power, dramatically reduced > taxes, cut back on state benefits and failed to enforce > regulatory laws covering consumer rights, occupational > health and safety, consumer protection, the minimum > wage, and the like. With two of the major capitalist > powers going neo-liberal could the rest of the world be > far behind? > > Neo-liberal orthodoxy, pushed by both Britain and the > US, swept through the international financial > institutions after 1980. The International Monetary > Fund became a prime agent in the promotion of neo- > liberal "structural adjustment" policies whenever it > had to deal with a credit crisis. As a result, > countries like Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and South > Africa were swept into the neo-liberal camp. The price > of entry into the global economic system for much of > the old Soviet Empire was privatization and the > assumption of a neo-liberal stance. Global competition > has drawn many other countries, even China and India, > into something approximating a neo-liberal state > structure. There are still some states, as in Europe > and Scandinavia that are holdouts for social democracy > and in East Asia many states have managed to combine > neo-liberalism externally with concern for equity at > home. But some variant of the neo-liberal state now > dominates world-wide. This all happened in part because > of a crisis of capitalism in the 1970s. Profit rates > were low, inflation and unemployment were everywhere > soaring upwards when the economic consensus (called > Keynesian) of the 1960s said they should offset each > other. Financial systems were in a mess, the stock > market was in decline, and there was a fiscal crisis of > state expenditures (with the bankruptcy of New York > City in 1975 being emblematic). The "social > democratic" state form that had emerged after 1945 > could not cope. Something new had to be invented. Neo- > liberalism won out as the answer. But has it been > successful? In terms of stimulating growth it has been > a dismal failure. Global growth rates in the 1950s and > 1960s stood at around 3.5 percent and fell in the > troubled 1970s to around 2.4 percent. But in the 1980s > they came down to 1.4 percent and fell even further in > the 1990s to 1.2 percent and since 2000 have barely > made it above 1 percent. So why are we so persuaded of > the benefits of neo-liberalism? > > There are two main answers. Firstly, neo-liberalism > has introduced considerable volatility into the global > system so there are usually some places that are doing > well while the rest do badly. In the 1980s it was > Japan and West Germany that led the pack and the US was > in the doldrums, but in the 1990s both fell behind with > Japan suffering from a decade of severe recession. In > the 1990s the US, Britain and some of the "tiger" > economies of Southeast Asia came out on top. Then > Southeast Asia crashed in 1997 followed by the collapse > of the "new economy" in the US and now China and India > seem to be racing ahead. In a Darwinian world, the > neo-liberal argument runs, you fall behind because you > are not competitive. You only survive if you are fit > enough. There is nothing systemically wrong. The > fault lies with you. You are not neo-liberal enough. > > Secondly, and more importantly, the richest income > groups have become infinitely better off under neo- > liberalism. Social inequality has increased rather than > diminished. In the US, for example, the top one > percent of income earners claimed 16 percent of the > national income before World War Two but during the > 1950s and 1960s this fell to 8 percent and the failures > of the 1970s threatened their power even more. But by > 2000 this group was back to claiming 15 percent of the > national income and this may shoot up to 20 percent in > the near future if the tax cuts stand. Similar trends, > though not quite so dramatic, can be detected in other > countries. > > So neo-liberalism has been about the restoration of > class power to a small elite of financiers and CEOs. > And since that class has overwhelming control of the > political process and of instruments of persuasion, of > course it insists that the world is a much better > place. And it is, for them. Yet in the US, as > elsewhere, most of the people are worse off than they > were in 1970, particularly when access to decent public > education, health care, and the like is factored in. > In those countries that have recently turned to neo- > liberalism, like China, Russia and India, we see the > emergence of extraordinarily rich oligarchies at the > expense of the rest of the population. > > But if aggregate growth is so low, how does the upper > class accumulate such wealth? They largely do so > through predatory practices, by dispossessing others. > This "accumulation by dispossession" takes many forms. > Cheap labor is everywhere preyed upon and the cheaper > and more docile the better. Profit rates of US > corporations are twice as high abroad as they are at > home. Common property rights (water, land, etc) get > privatized. Peasant populations get thrown off the > land. Environments are degraded. Patent rights on > everything from genetic materials, seeds, > pharmaceutical products to ideas allow rents to be > extracted from low-income populations. > > Fundamental goods like education and health care get > commodified and user fees escalate. The list goes on > and on. But most important of all the credit and > financial system is actively used to accumulate wealth > at one pole while extracting it from another. Family > farms are foreclosed even in the US. Pension rights are > privatized (Chile pioneered with social security) and > then all too often diminished or erased (as with Enron > or in China most recently). Even more dramatic are the > violent financial crises that have periodically wracked > much of Latin America, Central and East Europe, and > East and Southeast Asia. These allow productive assets > to be bought up by wealthy investors for a song. Neo- > liberalism has seen a massive transfer of asset wealth > from the poor to the rich. > > These injustices have sparked innumerable protests > around the world, loosely knit together in the anti- > globalization or global justice movement. The neo- > liberal response has often been state repression. > Mexico, for example, is advised by the US to crush the > Zapatista movement for indigenous rights. Given its > class basis, the neo-liberal state is understandably > antidemocratic. In some cases, such as Singapore and > China, it never bothered with democracy at all. And in > the West, it easily morphs into neo-conservative > authoritarianism. The so-called "war on terror" now > provides a cover for the extension of police > surveillance, militarization and authoritarian > measures. > > Curiously, the protest movements against neo-liberalism > often accept its terms. Before 1980, individual human > rights were a fringe interest, but neo-liberalism's > emphasis upon individual responsibility has sparked a > huge wave of interest in them in recent years. > Evocation of such rights can provide a rhetoric for > progressive politics. But this can also legitimize > interventions in sovereign states by imperialist > powers. Furthermore, since most individuals cannot > bring their cases to court a vast apparatus of advocacy > has emerged. The rise of the NGOs to political > prominence has been another stunning consequence of the > neo-liberal turn. NGOs sometimes aid and abet the > withdrawal of the state from social provision. In > other cases they offer tough critiques of neo-liberal > policies. But, unfortunately, NGOs are no more > democratic and transparent than the neo-liberal state > they criticize. The rise of human rights discourses and > of NGO power provides a limited terrain upon which to > mount effective opposition. > > The fear of social dissolution under an individualizing > neo-liberalism has also sparked the search for a moral > high-ground from which to secure the restoration of > class rule. Appeals to nationalism (China, Japan, USA), > to superior cultural values ("American," "Asiatic." > "Islamic"), to religion (Christian, Confucian, Hindu) > or to ethical commitments ("rights" and cosmopolitan > ethics) erupt into the discussion. The so-called > "culture wars" - however misguided some of them may > have been - cannot be sloughed off as some unwelcome > distraction. The transformation of moral repugnance > towards the alienations of neo-liberalism into > cultural and then political resistance is one of the > signs of our times. Social movements against neo- > liberalism, for example, frequently articulate their > opposition in moral economy terms. But purely moral > argument is at best a weak ground on which to contest > the alienations and anomie that neo-liberalism > produces. > > We have, in short, lived through an era of > sophisticated class struggle on the part of the upper > strata in society to restore or, as in China and > Russia, to reconstruct an overwhelming class power. > The turn to authoritarianism and neo-conservatism is > illustrative of the lengths to which that class will go > and the strategies it is prepared to deploy in order to > preserve and enhance its powers. The mass of the > population has either to submit to this overwhelming > class power or respond to it in class terms. If this > looks like, acts like and feels like class struggle > then we must be prepared to name it for what it is and > act accordingly. > > Though class movements may make themselves, they do not > do so under conditions of their own choosing. These > conditions are currently highly diverse and fragmented. > Finding the organic links between highly variegated > oppositional social movements is an urgent task. The > links are there. The gap between the promise of neo- > liberalism (the benefit of all) and its realization > (the benefit of a small ruling class) increases. Class > and regional inequalities both within states (such as > China, Russia, India and Southern Africa) as well as > internationally pose a serious political problem. The > idea that the market is about competition is negated by > the facts of monopolization, centralization and > internationalization of corporate and financial power. > The idea that neo-liberalism is about fairness is > brutally offset by the extensive facts of > dispossession. The idea that neo-liberalism is about > individual freedoms confronts the increasing > authoritarianism of the neo-liberal and now neo- > conservative state apparatus. The more neo-liberalism > is revealed as a failed utopian project masking the > restoration of class power for the few, the more it > lays the basis for a resurgence of mass movements > voicing egalitarian political demands, seeking economic > justice, fair (rather than "free") trade and greater > economic security. > > The profoundly anti-democratic nature of neo-liberalism > is becoming a potent political issue. The democratic > deficit in nominally democratic countries is now > enormous. Institutional arrangements, like the Federal > Reserve, are biased, outside of democratic control. > They lack transparency. Internationally, there is no > accountability let alone democratic control over > institutions such as the IMF, the WTO and the World > Bank. To bring back the demands for democratic > governance and for economic, political and cultural > equality and justice is not to suggest some return to a > golden past. The meaning of democracy in ancient Athens > has little to do with the meanings we must invest it > with today. But right across the globe, from China, > Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan, Korea as well as South > Africa, Iran, India, Egypt, the struggling nations of > Eastern Europe as well as in the heartlands of > contemporary capitalism, there are groups and social > movements in motion that are rallying to the cause of > democratic values. > > The Bush Presidency has projected upon the world the > idea that American values are supreme and that values > matter since they are the heart of what civilization is > about. The world is in a position to reject that > imperialist gesture and refract back into the heartland > of neo-liberal capitalism and neo-conservatism a > completely different set of values: those of an open > democracy dedicated to the achievement of social > equality coupled with economic, political and cultural > justice. > > David Harvey is Distinguished Professor of Anthropology > at the Graduate Center of the City University of New > York. His most recent book is The New Imperialism > published by Oxford University Press. 18 > _______________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Thu Aug 12 15:39:56 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:39:56 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: wouldn't it be nice? Message-ID: Dear AFM and SAYMA Friends, Following up on yesterday's message about "The Importance of Remittances To Developing Economies", an article in The Economist magazine, the Economics Focus section, July 31 - August 6th issue, p. 66 (I inadvertently left out the title of the piece I was quoting). my message emphasized the importance of refugee and immigrant resettlement in the US and in Western Europe for five reasons cited. Judy Lumb who lives in Belize but is a member of Atlanta Meeting was the first to respond. My response to her is below her message. Janet Minshall From: "judylumb at btl.net" To: jhminshall at comcast.net Subject: wouldn't it be nice? Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:12:57 -0400 Wouldn't it be nice if folks didn't have to leave home and family, go to a foreign country and send money home in order to have a sustainable living. Remittances are a large part of Belize's income as well. Those families do not like to be separated like that! Judy Hi Judy, Yes, it would be nice but the underlying issue seems to be one of what economists call "uneven development". Some countries have just not developed the leadership or the interest in participating in the world economy, or the leadership they have developed is so corrupt that it has continually taken the proceeds of early efforts at economic development for itself not sharing what was gained with the people of their country. The August 7 - 13 issue of The Economist, p. 40 has an article on Nigeria, a place Judy Bender considered for a fish farm development project. I believe she dropped it as a possibility because of the widespread corruption there and the inability to trust almost anyone to do what they said they would do. The Economist article details many of the problems of trying to do economic development or anything else there because of the ongoing corruption. My first involvement with a refugee in this country was with a young man from Nigeria. He was an Ibo refugee from the tribal violence which continued there for many, many years. I met him about forty-five years ago. I cannot see in the Economist article that things in Nigeria have improved much since then. It is the long term hopelessness of the situation that makes people leave to come to a place where they can at least count on the rules staying somewhat the same from year to year giving them the chance to start a business, for example, without the threat of being "harvested" by the regime and the tribe in power. The Economist of July 31 - August 8 has a lead article on Sudan which is a place where there is daily violence by the government through armed Arab militia against black Africans who are or might be part of rebel factions and violent reaction by the black African population. Situations such as those in Nigeria and Sudan which never make the news occur around the world and produce the great tide of refugees and immigrants who seek a safe and stable place to settle. I don't know first hand the disincentives in Belize that cause people to move as immigrants or migrant workers to the US. I expect that you could detail them. I will share your note with others on the discussion lists to whom I sent yesterday's message on the economic impact of remittances on the countries that refugees, immigrants and migrant workers leave to come primarily to the US, Canada or Western Europe. Thanks for responding. Janet >Original Message: >----------------- >From: Janet Minshall jhminshall at comcast.net >Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:52:54 -0400 >To: afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com, sayma at kitenet.net >Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: Money Sent Home By Legal and >IllegalImmigrants andRefugees: A Social Concern of Many Meetings and >Churches > > > >Dear Friends, I recently had a conversation with a Friend about money >sent home by refugees and immigrants -- whether legal or illegal -- >and its importance to the country of origin. His comment was that >"it couldn't be much". I said, from my years of work in resettling >refugees and learning the economics of refugee and immigrant >resettlement, that it was a lot more than most people imagined -- >often half of the money earned. An article in last week's issue of >The Economist magazine confirms my thoughts. (see The Economist, >July 31 '04, pg. 66) > >The article indicates that these payments, "remittances" to use the >English term, "provide more than a quarter of GDP for Jordan, >Lesotho, Nicaragua, Haiti and Tonga and more than 5% for many other >countries. In 36 countries, remittances exceed all other imports of >capital combined, public and private. Recent research ties rising >remittances directly to increasingly GDP and reducing poverty. >Another study finds a positive link between remittances and the >probability that children stay in school. At this year's G8 Summit >rich world politicians noted the importance of remittances in >financing small businesses, education and housing in recipient >countries. > >As a source of finance remittances have several advantages. Unlike >development loans, they do not come with a liability or an obligation >to pay interest. They are sent directly to the people for whom they >are intended and thus cannot be squandered by governments (or corrupt >leaders). And they are a more stable funding source than foreign >direct investment -- and even more stable than portfolio flows. > >India, the largest recipient country, abolished taxes on remittances >several years ago. Columbia followed in January, and Mexico, the >second largest recipient country, has made sending money home far >easier for its many citizens working in America by issuing an >identification card that even illegal immigrants can use to open an >American bank account. Brazil and Guatemala will soon introduce >similar cards." > >As to the total amount of such funds, "According to a recent study by >Dilip Ratha, an economist at The World Bank, remittances amounted to >$93 billion last year. This is more than poor countries received >from aid or capital markets. The real number, Mr Ratha says, may >well be twice as high -- making remittances greater than foreign >direct investment and in some countries, more valuable than exports." > >I have written recently about the positive effects on the US economy >of encouraging more refugees and immigrants to settle here. In the >first place, they do not add to world population growth figures as >they, as well as foreign adopted children, have already been counted >in their countries of origin. Second, they will substantially delay >the very serious problem of flat or declining levels of population in >the US which would otherwise, within fifty years, begin to reduce our >level of tax collection and thus decrease the amount and quality of >social and human services which can be provided such as Education, >Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Early Childhood Programs like >Headstart and Veteran's Benefits. Third, the US and the other >developed countries in the world can better handle the well-known >negative effects of population growth on the environment than can >less developed countries. Fourth, newly arrived refugees and >immigrants do not consume material goods in the same manner or at the >same level as we who are born to relative affluence. Their patterns >of consumption were formed in a much poorer economy and so they do >not reach the level of consumption of the US born population until >the second or even the third generation after their big move. As >environmentally concerned Friends say, they "leave a smaller >footprint" on the environment than the rest of us, at least for >awhile. Fifth, they often take jobs and perform work that those of us >born in the US will not do even if we are laid off from our regular >work, and thus they fill a very real employment need that even the >labor unions cannot address. > >Any comments from you would be appreciated. Best Regards, Janet > >_______________________________________________ >Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list >posting address: sayma at kitenet.net >subscribe/unsubscribe: http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >mail2web - Check your email from the web at >http://mail2web.com/ . From jhminshall at comcast.net Thu Aug 12 16:00:35 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:00:35 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [saymaListserv] Fwd: Money Sent Home By Legal and Illegal Immigrants and Refugees: A Social Concern of Many Meetings and Churches Message-ID: Hi Nancy Winfrey, Thanks so much for the feedback and for introducing yourself. I'm glad to know you on the list and look forward to meeting you at Yearly Meeting. Janet Minshall From Nancy Winfrey today: >Subject: Re: [saymaListserv] Fwd: Money Sent Home By Legal and >Illegal Immigrants and Refugees: A Social Concern of Many Meetings >and Churches > > >As a recently convinced 70 yr. old Friend, but long time attender, I >would like to second your opinion. > >I have long been of the opinion that closing our borders to all but >proven violent criminals from other countries gives the lie to the >inscription on the Statue of Liberty. > >Other than the native Americans, most of us wouldn't be able to be >in this country if current immigration laws had been in effect when >our decedents came here. I have ancestors dating back to the >Mayflower, and I deplore the "exclusivity" that their descendents >instituted. It isn't just economically wrong, per your article, but >morally wrong. It represents the height of "I've got mine, now you >go and get yours"! > >Whether we like it or not, Alvin Tofler was right some twenty five >to thirty years ago when he wrote "The Third Wave". We are in a >world economy, and are just beginning to see on the horizon the >world wide stirrings of the chaos everywhere that started between >economic classes in this country in the sixties. Only this time, >mix in nuclear weapons which are proliferating everywhere. In sheer >numbers, the "have" countries can't possibly control the "have not" >populations of this world. > >So - what can I, as an individual do? Lots of things: > > I can consume less and less as I can identify and am > able. > > I can vote for those who at least say they will be more >responsible about civil rights and the environment. > > I can try to get the "message" out - one on one. > > I can set an example of fiscal and material >responsibility. > > I can refuse to listen to the "consumer based economy " crowd. > > I can welcome and support all immigrants I come in > contact with, legal or illegal, as long as they are not > violent criminals. > > There are probably other things I can do, but I have to await >leadings, and be open to them as they come. > > If this is useful to you, please don't hesitate to share it. > >Nancy A. Winfrey > >Clemson Worship Group >Clemson, SC >(member of Greenville, SC Monthly Meeting) > > >eye candy graphics and design > >bumper sticker > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bumper-trust_in_god.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dovec.gif Type: image/gif Size: 38556 bytes Desc: not available URL: From freepolazzo at comcast.net Sat Aug 14 18:11:08 2004 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:11:08 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Good vs. bad capitalism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20040814173903.02f72420@mail.comcast.net> Hi Larry, Friend speaks my mind. Thanks for helping Friends understand that all corporations are not the same. Just like people, there are good and there are bad and there are in between and they even change their spots! Once an organization grows beyond "human" scale, trouble begins. Max Weber wrote about bureaucracy and how it stifles people's best intentions. http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Weber/WEBERW8.HTML I also recommend Reinhold Neighber's book "Moral Man and Immoral Society" as a further study on why it is tough for any group to be "moral". (even Friends). I maintain that it isn't only For Profit large corporations that can do "bad'. Not for profit (I call them Tax Exempt) corporations can be placed in the same category as the rest. Regards, Free PS: I am part owner of a small business. Check us out at : www.friendlysystems.com At 02:17 PM 8/11/2004, you wrote: >Friends, > >There has been some conversation on this list lamenting the negative >opinion many modern Quakers alledgely hold about business. > >Another way to frame the discussion is about what kinds of business are >good and what kinds are bad. E.F. Shumacher took this approach. Rather >than uncritically condemning or embracing capitalism, he tried to discern >what scale of economic endeavor was best, with "best" defined as community >health rather than size per se or the wealth of corporate executives and >investors. > >In my mind, my father owned a "good" business, one that provided support >for my family and those of 6-8 other people. He lived in the community in >which his business was located and worked tirelessly on behalf of the >common good through various groups like Rotary International. In >Appalachia where I live, it is easy to see examples of "bad" business that >extracts wealth from the region, destroys the land and viewscape, and pays >back little in terms of wages or taxes for local social infrastructure >like schools. A historic study around 1980 found that the extent of >absentee ownership of wealth in Appalachia was inversely related to a >county's well-being in terms of such measures as poverty, income, and >social capital. > >Here is a provocative article by David Harvey critiquing current trends in >today's business world. While it may appear negative to business, I see >it as trying to discern a happy medium between greed and >impoverishment. Hope you find it informative. > >Peace like a river, > >Guy Larry Osborne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Sun Aug 15 13:41:20 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:41:20 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: Is Population Decline A Greater Threat Now Than Population Growth? Message-ID: Dear Friends, In my last message about refugee and immigrant resettlement I forgot to include the actual title of the piece. In the Table of Contents it is shown as "The Importance of Remittances to Developing Economies". It appears in the July 31 - August 6th issue of The Economist magazine in the Economics Focus section, p 66. The message below is addressed to Stan Becker whom I have know for almost twenty years since he was working as an MD demographer at the CDC here in Atlanta and was a member of Atlanta Meeting. He is now at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and gave a plenary address at this year's FGC Gathering. He is most active in Quaker Earthcare Witness, the group that used to be Friends in Unity With Nature. I will appreciate any responses you have time to offer Janet Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:05:16 -0400 To: From: Janet Minshall Subject: Is Population Decline A Greater Threat Now Than Population Growth? Cc: Bcc: , X-Attachments: Summary, Table of Contents Foreign Affairs, Vol.83 No.3, "The Global Baby Bust" by Philip Longman: "Most people think overpopulation is one of the worst dangers facing the globe. In fact, the opposite is true. As countries get richer, their populations age and their birthrates plummet. And this is not just a problem of rich countries: the developing world is also getting older fast. Falling birthrates might seem beneficial, but the economic and social price is too steep to pay. The right policies could help turn the tide, but only if enacted before it's too late." Dear Stan Becker, Thanks for the interesting dinner conversation we shared at the FGC Gathering. I was happy to learn that you had written and spoken about the issue of precipitous population decline in much of Western Europe, as well as among the US population of European descent. Thanks for the printout "World Population Growth:trends and environmental impacts". The latest detailed discussion I've seen is in a very good article in the May-June '04 issue of Foreign Affairs, "The Global Baby Bust" by Philip Longman, pp. 64-80. It details many of the threats as well as the benefits of a declining and aging population worldwide. While longterm effects on the environment may ultimately be good, and while there may be fewer resources to enable war making, the enormous impact on the living standards, health and welfare of those people who survive may turn out to be completely unacceptable, i.e. a very long period of worldwide poverty and disease such as occurred in Europe during "the Dark Ages". So the question is what can we do now to best serve the interests of the greatest number? Will the dearth of babies suddenly cause the general public to do an about face and embrace the biotechnology of cloning and artificial reproduction as some blithely assume? Continuing to focus our attention on population growth seems futile because we are in a position as Friends of being primarily of European descent and therefore we are a part of one of the fastest declining populations on Earth. Those whose populations are not declining as quickly are people of color and people from less developed countries. All of us share a common fate some years in the future. In the present, however, it is not appropriate for white people of Western European descent to be telling others not to have so many babies. Actually our efforts to tell anyone what to do with their fertility raises issues of arrogance, racism and imperialism and seems not to have much effect anyway. It has been shown convincingly that economic development and improvement in standards of living actually do influence the number of babies women choose to have (as shown in your World Population Growth printout). The better off women are, and the more secure they feel, the fewer babies they have. In fact, it might be better for the Population Concerns Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness (QEW) to begin the process of turning around our efforts to educate Friends and others not just on population growth, but also on the looming threat of population decline. Yes, we will have 75 million more people in the world at the end of this year than we had at the end of last year, but that number is shrinking rapidly year by year and bringing us closer and closer to the point of balance -- of as many births as deaths in the world -- and the point of balance is the beginning of population decline and living in a no-growth economy whose tax base is rapidly disappearing and whose poorest people are beginning to starve. Such an economy could no longer provide education for our children, Social Security and Medicare for our elderly, or a safety net of any kind for those who are or will become unemployed or disabled. I think you are aware of the refugees Atlanta Meeting sponsored as part of the Sanctuary Movement as well as my work with refugees and immigrants as Director (Regional Consultant) of Refugee and Migration Services for Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services in the Southeast US from '82 to '91. I wrote to the Quaker Earthcare Witness discussion list earlier today about the economic benefits of bringing more refugees and immigrants to the US, indicating that process would serve, among other things, as a delaying tactic to give us more time to address the terrible effects of population decline both on the people of the US and on those from other countries who might be allowed to come here to become American workers. It turns out that refugee and immigrant resettlement also redistributes wealth in significant amounts to the poorest countries whose people flee as refugees and immigrants due to war, famine, and poverty (see previous message). However, refugee and immigrant resettlement is truly a short term measure. Long term we cannot hope to counter the negative effects of population decline and a no-growth economy in that manner. The scope of a population decline such as the one Longman envisions is potentially far too devastating to be addressed by such a simple solution. It seems to me that we must start the process of sharing ideas and planning now for smaller scale economies, not dependent on population growth, worldwide. Not doing so, not thinking about, facing and analyzing what might work in such a situation, is to stand by watching while humankind hurtles headlong toward the cliff's edge. If we cannot do this for the abstract greater good then we must do it for our children and grandchildren who will inherit the problem from us with even less time to prepare (that is, if we don't blow ourselves up with nuclear bombs or experience a global environmental catastrophe first). I expect you have already read the article from Foreign Affairs cited above. I'm sure it is available at the Johns Hopkins Library. Unfortunately, Foreign Affairs doesn't reprint whole articles online or I'd send it to you and everyone else on the QEW discussion list. I would appreciate a response as a member of the Population Concerns Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness (QEW) if you feel led to make one. I expect others in QEW would also be interested in hearing from you on this matter. Any discussion is welcome. Best Regards, Janet Minshall -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Wed Aug 18 09:49:36 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:49:36 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? Message-ID: >Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:03:22 -0400 >To: earthcare at yahoo groups.com >From: Janet Minshall >Subject: Fwd: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our >Responsibilities As Friends? >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Thanks, Roy Treadway, for picking up the ball on this issue within >Quaker Earthcare Witness (see his message below this one). I >appreciate your response. Speaking as someone trained in political >economics, I am not as optimistic about the effects of impending >population decline as you are. You say: > >>For this reason, I would like to see QEW take up Janet's challenge and >>conceptualize how no-population growth and aging will bring advantages >>to a community and nation along with environmental advantages and >>consider how an environmentally responsible society takes care of its >>population as the population becomes older." > >I think the advantages to the environment of a declining population >are fairly readily apparent and are considered of paramount >importance to those whose primary concerns have been environmental. >What has been disregarded, however, has been the probable effect on >the human population living at the time that the economy turns from >one based on population growth to one based on population decline, >as well as the effect on those who come after. > >You point out quite correctly that capitalism arose out of the >collapse of feudalism. The point I am making, however, is that the >collapse of feudalism brought with it devastating consequences for >the people who had to live through it, among which were famine, >disease, death on an enormous scale and massive dislocation. There >were no factories to go to for work for hundreds of years >afterwards. Many, many people wandered homeless and, greatly >weakened from starvation, became ill from communicable diseases and >infected others as they went. You say: > >>In fact, The Black Death of the middle ages enhanced the decline of >>feudalism and the rise of capitalism, as labor became scarcer and in >>demand in the cities. It was a rapid increase in deaths that brought >>about these difficulties; AIDS in some countries of Africa is also >>decimating the youthful, child-caring, labor-force population. > >Or one could say quite truthfully, and less optimistically, that >millions of people died in the process of transition from one >economic system to the next and that the plagues referred to as The >Black Death raged on in subsequent outbreaks over three centuries. >More than half the population of London died. More than two-thirds >of the student population of Oxford perished. Commerce ground to a >halt. There was a complete breakdown of law and government. >Those likely to die first were small children, the elderly and the >poor, but the plague and starvation resulting from the loss of man >and womanpower to farm the land, milk the cows and provide all other >forms of food supply and transport affected everyone. There was no >place to hide. > >In our time the president and the congress might be expected to go >quickly to the vast caverns full of food and water prepared for them >and still maintained in case of nuclear attack, but how long could >their provisions last? Eventually they would have to come out and >join the rest of us -- or actually join however many of our >decendants that had survived. > >You cite the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in >Austria as generously estimating the amount of time we have until >we reach population equilibrium -- as many births as deaths -- being >at least 75 years. Others disagree. The UN projection is that we >could reach that point as soon as 45 years from now. True, there is >no assurance that what happened in the transition from feudalism to >capitalism would happen again, but neither is there any assurance >that it would not happen again. It is the precedent of history. If >we completely ignore it, we do so at our peril. > >My point is not to unduly frighten anyone but rather to start the >process of seriously discussing and planning for such a transition. >Not to do so is just as much a betrayal of future generations as >environmental degradation is right now. I think population decline >IS our concern and the sooner the better. > Respectfully, Janet Minshall > > > > > > > > > >>To: earthcare at yahoogroups.com >>From: Roy and Carolyn Treadway >>Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:27:51 -0500 >>Subject: [earthcare] Future population issues >>Reply-To: earthcare at yahoogroups.com >> >> >>Dear Friends: >> >> We have had a lively discussion recently about the issues of population >>in the future to which QEW should respond. Much of this has been >>sparked by Janet Minshall, who has suggested important issues for us to >>consider. Let me put forth my perspective on the issues. >> >> 1. While population decline has taken place in some European countries >>today, for the world population, decline is not our concern, at least, >>not yet. Most demographers think the world population will continue to >>grow considerably in the future, although at a gradually decreasing >>rate. As I have written earlier: >> >>"There is growing consensus among professional demographers that world >>population growth is likely to stop [late] in this century. >>Demographers at >>the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, >>using stochastic models, have published a book entitled THE END OF WORLD >>POPULATION GROWTH IN THE 21ST CENTURY: NEW CHALLENGES FOR HUMAN CAPITAL >>FORMATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Likewise United Nations >>demographers, using standard cohort-component techniques, also project >>population growth likely reaching 9.2 billion in 2075 up from 6.1 >>billion in 2000, and falling to 9.1 billion in 2100 (according to their >>medium scenario). Such projections are fraught with uncertainties, as >>shown by their low projection of 5.5 billion in 2100 and their high >>projection of 14.0 billion in 2100. The cessation of population growth >>is FAR from INEVITABLE." >> >> Any possible cessation of population growth for the world is likely 75 >>years or more in the future, with an increase of about 3 million more >>people, or 50 percent greater than today. We can not adequately feed, >>clothe, provide water and energy for, and remove the wastes of the 6 or >>so billion people we have in the world today, much less a world of 9 >>billion people in the future. Population growth still remains a very >>important problem in the world and will likely continue to be a problem >>worldwide as long as many of us will be alive and after QEW hopes to be >>out of business. We need to keep our focus on population growth, while >>also anticipating problems of non-growing or declining populations. >> >> 2. The main, very real concern that many have when they anticipate >>non-growing or declining populations is the aging of the population. >>Janet says, "When population is in decline that means we also have a >>declining tax base to provide education, healthcare, and funding for the >>support of infants and children, the elderly, the unemployed and the >>disabled. In our present economic structure we will still have more >>people than the money to care for them until the population decline >>reverses and population begins to grow again which could be many hundred >>of years." Certainly, this is a major challenge for us, although we do >>not know for sure that all this will actually be a consequence of >>non-growing or decline populations; some of it speculation, base on >>experience today with declining populations. Mathematically, if we want >>to live a long life as a population and not have a growing population, >>we will have low fertility and an older population. Continuing >>population growth will not solve our problem, unless we want higher >>mortality and a lower standard of living. >> >> For this reason, I would like to see QEW take up Janet's challenge and >>conceptualize how no-population growth and aging will bring advantages >>to a community and nation with along environmental advantages and >>consider how an environmentally responsible society takes care of its >>population as the population becomes older. If we stop growing, we will >>have fewer people than we might otherwise have had and greater >>opportunities to make an economic shift along with the demographic >>shift. This will involve likely changes in our economic structure, >>something relevant to the Quaker Eco-Witness project on the economics of >>sustainability. >> >> In fact, the black death of the middle ages enhanced the decline of >>feudalism and the rise of capitalism, as labor became scarcer and in >>demand in the cities. It was a rapid increase in deaths that brought >>about these difficulties; AIDS in some countries of Africa is also >>decimating the youthful, child-caring, labor-force population. Today, >>we are seeing a gradual decline in fertility; we have much more time to >>adjust to the aging of our population. It might also be a catalyst for >>other changes in in our economic system. >> >> As Janet has argued earlier, as well, international migration might >>mitigate the effects of low fertility in developed counties, thus >>allowing both developing and developed countries to adjust to slower or >>no population growth or even to population decline. As long as we have >>great disparities among countries in economic opportunities, >>international migration is certainly going to take place, whether we >>like it or not. >> >> 3. Fertility has been affected worldwide by many factors, including >>intentional economic development, education for girls, urbanization, and >>family planning programs. These have had an effect in some Asian, South >>American, and African countries as well as in North America and Europe. >>If fertility had not been affected in some way, we would not be thinking >>about possible declining population growth now. >> >> Thus, I hope QEW will continue to be concerned about significant >>population growth, the implications of the aging of most populations, >>the unequal distribution of resources among populations, and our overall >>use of resources everywhere. These are all important for moving us to a >>sustainable world society. >> >> >> Roy C. Treadway >> >> >>Janet Minshall wrote: >>> >>> "I have written recently about the positive effects on the US economy >>> of encouraging more refugees and immigrants to settle here. In the >>> first place, they do not add to world population growth figures as >>> they, as well as foreign adopted children, have already been counted >>> in their countries of origin." This would give us, here in the US, a >>> little extra time to plan what we do next. >>> >>> But I speak to both population decline and population growth in my >>> second message, a copy of a posting to Stan Becker dated later the >>> same day. If you read it I think you will understand the issue. It >>> isn't about population growth in the present, which Stan and other >>> demographers indicate is slowing dramatically, but the really >>> devastating effects of population decline in the future. The >>> projections from demographers and economists range from 45 to 75 >>> years until the whole world reaches a point of balance -- as many >>> babies born as die each year. As Friends we all understand clearly >>> the problems posed by too vigorous population growth and the >>> environmental degradation which it causes. What many Friends don't >>> realize is that all will not be well when we reach a point of balance >>> and then go into population a decline such as Europe is experiencing >>> right now. When population is in decline that means we also have a >>> declining tax base to provide education, healthcare, and funding for >>> the support of infants and children, the elderly, the unemployed and >>> the disabled. In our present economic structure we will still have >>> more people than the money to care for them until the population >>> decline reverses and population begins to grow again which could be >>> many hundred of years. >>> >>> My suggestion is that we start now, before the decline in population >>> begins on a mass scale, to analyze, strategize and plan. To look >>> carefully at what has worked and what has not worked in our past and >>> to put together new and smaller economies that do not depend on >> > population growth as does our present system. If we do not, it is >> > our children and grandchildren who will have to do that with much >>> less time than we have to prepare for the change from too many people >>> to too few people. It is they who might have to live through a long >>> period of famine, high mortality and diminished culture such as that >> > which occurred in Europe during "the Dark Ages". >>> >>> I indicate in that second message that telling anyone to do anything >> > about their fertility probably doesn't work in any case -- especially >>> if the populations which are growing consist of people of color and >>> people from less developed countries. I hope this clarifies. Janet >>> Minshall >>> >>> >Janet, my experience with population problems is nil, but I can't >>> >see encouraging population growth, with its devastating effects on >>> >Earth. Your idea of encouraging small economies seems to me the >>> >route we need to follow now. >>> >Peace for Earth, Doris >>> >-------------------- >>> >FROM : Janet Minshall >>> >DATE : Wed 08/11/2004 08:05:20 PDT >>> >SUBJECT: [earthcare] Fwd: Money Sent Home By Legal and Illegal >>> >Immigrants and [ Part 2 of 2 ] >>> > >>> >social and human services which can be provided such as Education, >>> >Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Early Childhood Programs like >>> >Headstart and Veteran's Benefits. Third, the US and the other >>> >developed countries in the world can better handle the well-known >>> >negative effects of population growth on the environment than can >>> >less developed countries. Fourth, newly arrived refugees and >>> >immigrants do not consume material goods in the same manner or at the >>> >same level as we who are born to relative affluence. Their patterns >>> >of consumption were formed in a much poorer economy and so they do >>> >not reach the level of consumption of the US born population until >>> >the second or even the third generation after their big move. As >>> >environmentally concerned Friends say, they "leave a smaller >>> >footprint" on the environment than the rest of us, at least for >>> >awhile. Fifth, they often take jobs and perform work that those of us >>> >born in the US will not do even if we are laid off from our regular >>> >work, and thus they fill a very real employment need that even the >>> >labor unions cannot address. >>> > >>> >Any comments from you would be appreciated. Best Regards, Janet >>> >>> >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> >>Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. >>Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! >>http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wpWolB/TM >>--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> >> >> >>Yahoo! Groups Links >> >><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/earthcare/ >> >><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >> earthcare-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com >> >><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ >> From jhminshall at comcast.net Wed Aug 18 15:26:03 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:26:03 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? In-Reply-To: <41236381.000001.03864@NANCY> References: <41236381.000001.03864@NANCY> Message-ID: Hi Again Nancy Winfrey, I love the artwork you add to the messages you've sent. No, You're right. Population is not yet declining in Third World Countries. But the rate of growth is slowing significantly. Stan Becker (an MD demographer who works at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and used to be a member of Atlanta Meeting) handed out a series of graphs at the FGC Gathering. He gave me a printout when I met with him. It shows the rate of world population growth declining from nearly 2% in 1950 to the point where it is now a little over 1% and projects a decline to about 1/2 of 1% (.05%) within the next 40 years (Stan used the figure of 75 million per year for current world population growth in our conversation recently, but it is falling, not rising or just flattening as Stan's graphic projections apparently show.) As I indicated in my previous messages, world population is expected to reach the point of equilibrium in from 45 years to 75 years depending on which sources you accept and what happens with mortality from war, disease, famine, natural disasters, and ecological changes as well as "lifestyle factors" such as obesity, drinking alcohol, smoking and using street drugs between now and then. Stan's numbers on population after 1999 in the graphs are all projections, not accomplished fact. According to 2002 UN Population Division figures the population in much of Western Europe is already in decline, as is the population in Japan. The population of European descent in North America is already at or below equilibrium or replacement. Relatively new demographic information which I shared with Stan at the FGC Gathering puts the decline in population in Russia at nearly 1 million people a year as birthrates are moving lower AND mortality rates are moving higher. Let me stop here and give a couple of references for those of you who need to go look it up and see for yourselves: "Europe's Baby Bust", the National Geographic magazine, by Scott Elder, September 2003. The UN Population Division projections from 2002 are graphically illustrated. They show nine European countries with projected declines in population of more than 20%, seven European countries with declines of 10% to 20%, and nine European countries with declines of less than 10%. The last paragraph of this article is: "Without babies to replenish the labor force and pay taxes, Europeans will be hard pressed to fund the pensions of longer living retirees, To stay in the black, governments will need to take unpopular steps, such as raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, hiking taxes, and increasing legal immigration. says Chamie (Joseph Chamie, director of the United Nations Population Division): "There's no way out of the demographic box". "The Coming Baby Bust" , Foreign Affairs, by Phillip Longman, May-June 2004. Summary in the Table of Contents previously cited in my message "Is Population Decline A Bigger Threat Now Than Population Growth?" "Abnormal Demographics", Foreign Affairs , by Mark Lawrence Schrad of the University of Wisconsin, July-August 2004 Letter To The Editor p.150. "These dramatic figures (of a population decline in Russia approaching 1 million people a year) represent the largest peacetime rate of population loss in Europe since the plagues. And the trend has no discernible end in sight. Goskomstat (Russia's state statistical agency) projects the Russian population to shrink between 77 and 126 million by 2050, and Murray Feshbach, the United States' foremost demographer of Russia, estimates that it (Russia's population) will drop by more than a third, to a mere 100 million." Schrad writes further: "Male life expectancy has continued to decline significantly since 1998....In fact, Russians have the lowest life expectancy of any post communist nation....This demographic implosion continues at both ends: not only are Russians dying at an increasing rate, but fewer Russians are being born every year, and even fewer are being born healthy....The percentage of children born healthy today in Russia is lower than before the discovery of penicillin." Nancy, I agree completely with you that immigration to and refugee resettlement in the US should be increased significantly. I have made that suggestion in previous messages. I appreciate your response adding to the discussion. Best Regards, Janet Minshall > >This is a Fine Predicament! >What I am not reading here in your analysis is the following: > >Population is not reclining in third world countries! Our >immigration policies are contributing to the lack of population >growth in this country as current inhabitants age and birthrates >fall. > >This country's growth until the 20th century depended on immigration >from poorer countries. This policy of today, of "I've got mine, you >go get yours" that underlies restrictions on immigration cause more >problems than aging, stable population. > >1. Opportunities for those in third world economies aren't >available to those who would immigrate and increase and offset our >aging population, except with strict limitations. > >2. The gap in wealth between have-nots and those in power is >increasing daily here. > >3. The need for unskilled labor is not being adequately met - >traditionally met by immigrants who will then educate their children >for a better life and productive citizenship. > >All of these shortcomings due to restricted immigration are coming >to a head also. As the "equilibrium" you cite approaches, it can be >at least alleviated by an overhaul of our immigration policies, >which will > >a. Relieve the overpopulation stresses of third world countries > >b. Give those who are motivated to immigrate a decent chance to > improve their lives and those of their children > >c. Help ease the dilemma of caring for our aging population. > >d. And last, but not least, fulfill the promises etched on our > Statue of Liberty. > >I realize that care must be taken to restrict immigration for >criminal purpose, but putting numbers quotas on different countries >seems to me to be discriminatory, self serving for the wealthy of >this country, and harmful to our coming imbalance in population. > >I hope you will consider the above when debating this issue. > >Nancy A. Winfrey >Clemson Worship Group >Clemson, SC > > >**FzyWzy** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Predicament.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20751 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Thu Aug 19 18:59:52 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:59:52 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? Message-ID: >Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:48:48 -0400 >To: Wilkinson, Signe >From: Janet Minshall >Subject: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our >Responsi bilities As Friends? >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Hi Signe Wilkinson, Thanks so much for the response. It is really >refreshing to hear from someone who is interested in the questions >raised by some of the new findings about population trends. I find >them just as fascinating as they are disturbing. They could serve as >an impetus for rethinking much of what we have been doing/saying as >Friends for quite awhile. > >I agree with you about the need to seriously reconsider the age of >retirement as well as providing retraining for those who, do to age >or disability, have become unable to do the work that they once >performed. What is available now for active older people is retail >or food preparation work at WalMart or McDonalds at the lowest of >all possible wages. That makes no sense for people like me >(disabled for the past 13 years since the age of 51) who can still >think pretty clearly, who has executive and professional experience, >who can use a computer, but who cannot travel to work or work full >time due to the untreatable pain in my body. I and others like me >get Social Security disability payments, but they amount to less >than $1,000 a month. Prescription drugs and healthcare are going up >and up despite the Medicare card I carry. And I dread the thought of >ever having to depend on "the system" for nursing home care. I hope >and pray not to live that long. > >I'm afraid that the newer information on the prospects of living as >part of an aging and declining population are not what Friends wish >to hear. The amount of denial among the responses I've received is >great. Pasted in below your message is my response to several >Friends. Others wrote to say that my information must be wrong or >they would have heard about it from Friends publications or wider >Quaker organizations or from individual Friends whoknow a lot more >than they do about demography. My comment is to remind Friends that >there is a real concern about panic reactions as well as a >disinclination among those who have been working for population >control to report on the realities of a significantly changing >situation in the world. > Janet Minshall > > >Signe Wilkinson wrote on 8-19-04 > >Dear Janet Minshall: > >I'm just eavesdropping on your e-mail conversations and don't think >I've heard all of them but find the issue fascinating if, for no >other reason, than that we've been worried about the opposite >(population explosion) for so long. I recently re-read the AFSC >1970-ish pamphlet "Who Shall Live?" which broaches the issue of >legalizing abortion. It argued for abortion on the most clinical, >least spiritual points--basically fearing a population bomb. Even as >an ardent pro-choicer, I winced at the mechanistic reasoning. Not >only do those arguments seem sort of quaint and overwrought now, but >they make one ask whether there ought to be some other rethinking of >the Quaker perspective on life/death issues. > >As to your other points about adjusting to the idea of an older >society, the whole Social Security debate comes to mind. John Kerry >promised not to touch the retirement age but it seems to me idiotic >not to. Certainly some people have had jobs that physically can't >be sustained at older ages and shouldn't be expected to go on after >their health has given out. But most Friends and many other >Americans aren't in that category. You are the expert. Perhaps you >could comment on whether retiring at 65 doesn't mean having 30 years >where other people are going to be taking care of you in one way or >another. Shouldn't we be thinking about working a good deal >longer--even if we ratchet back the intensity of our work or kind of >work we do? If you already discussed them, forgive me, but I'd love >to hear some ideas about how reforms now might help down the line. >Signe Wilkinson > > > >Janet Minshall wrote on 8-18-04: > >Dear Friends, >In my previous messages, I raised the possibility that the coming >decline in world population might well represent the end of our >current economic system which is and always has been based on a >growing population producing a growing economy. Amazingly, I have >heard from Friends who have responded gleefully "Oh good, then we >can move quickly on to Socialism and leave behind the evils of >Capitalism for good". Aside from the widespread death, disease and >dislocation which might accompany any transition to another economic >system, the difficulty, of course, is that Socialism hasn't worked >anywhere it has been tried. It has been combined with liberal >capitalism and democracy in, for example, Scandinavia and several >other European countries but as the cost of social entitlements and >benefits such as Social Security and private pensions, Medicare, >Medicaid and health insurance, schools and private education have >grown more and more expensive, those countries have rapidly backed >off from Socialism in favor of liberal democratic capitalist >alternatives. Even Fidel Castro, dedicated revolutionary Socialist >that he is, is said to have encouraged workshops on Capitalist >economic development in Cuba to try to remedy the failures of >Socialism. Why is that? people ask. "Socialism sounds like such an >ideal system." Thats right, it is an ideal system, a utopian system >that humankind has never yet managed to achieve. > >Capitalism developed over many centuries. It wasn't invented or >thought up. It evolved out of the experience of our human >weaknesses, our greed and our desire for power. It developed >alongside our common laws, it became part of our legal system, our >property rights, police, courts, and governments, all of which limit >the effects of our weaknesses. Capitalism has incorporated those >constraints that kept us from too freely expressing our greed and >our need for dominance and power individually as well as among >clans, tribes and nations. The reason we know so much currently >about the excesses of individuals and groups within corporate >capitalism is because we have laws, property rights, police, courts >and governments to call them to account for thier misdeeds and to >make them pay for their greedy power-seeking behavior. Capitalism >has also provided financial incentives for individual and group >achievement which seem to be much more powerful as motivators of >innovation than is the abstract concept of "the greater good". And >finally, Capitalism has provided unlimited access to capital even >for "the little guy" (finally, in the modern era, women can also be >included as they, belatedly, are beginning to have widespread access >to capital as well -- as in the Quaker Economic Development Program >"Right Sharing of World Resources"). Perhaps the next economic >transition will be to something that combines the community-building >and socially responsible aspects of what was originally envisioned >as Socialism with even wider access to capital and the necessary >constraints on greed and power of Capitalism. > >Despite all of our learning and "civilization", despite all of our >modern marvels, the time of transition from our present economy to >the next, and the time just after that transition, will likely be >ugly and painful. For a time there will be considerably more people >than funds and resources to support them. If history teaches us >anything it is that times of great change tend to be especially >brutal for the poorest and the weakest, the youngest and the oldest, >and the process of transition to a new economy may last for a very >long time. > Janet Minshall > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timlally at comcast.net Thu Aug 19 22:17:19 2004 From: timlally at comcast.net (Tim Lally) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:17:19 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040820021745.E584018708@kitenet.net> One Friends' response to the increasing numbers of senior citizens appears to be to develop retirement communities. I was recently in Richmond, IN, in FUM territory, and saw one such extensive development of this kind, situated next to the new First Friends. One sees advertisements for similar Friends-related developments located elsewhere in the country in FGC territory. Presumably there are similar endeavors out west and in Ohio in EFI territory. Tim Lally _____ From: sayma-bounces at kitenet.net [mailto:sayma-bounces at kitenet.net] On Behalf Of Janet Minshall Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 7:00 PM To: afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com; sayma at kitenet.net Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:48:48 -0400 To: Wilkinson, Signe From: Janet Minshall Subject: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsi bilities As Friends? Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: Hi Signe Wilkinson, Thanks so much for the response. It is really refreshing to hear from someone who is interested in the questions raised by some of the new findings about population trends. I find them just as fascinating as they are disturbing. They could serve as an impetus for rethinking much of what we have been doing/saying as Friends for quite awhile. I agree with you about the need to seriously reconsider the age of retirement as well as providing retraining for those who, do to age or disability, have become unable to do the work that they once performed. What is available now for active older people is retail or food preparation work at WalMart or McDonalds at the lowest of all possible wages. That makes no sense for people like me (disabled for the past 13 years since the age of 51) who can still think pretty clearly, who has executive and professional experience, who can use a computer, but who cannot travel to work or work full time due to the untreatable pain in my body. I and others like me get Social Security disability payments, but they amount to less than $1,000 a month. Prescription drugs and healthcare are going up and up despite the Medicare card I carry. And I dread the thought of ever having to depend on "the system" for nursing home care. I hope and pray not to live that long. I'm afraid that the newer information on the prospects of living as part of an aging and declining population are not what Friends wish to hear. The amount of denial among the responses I've received is great. Pasted in below your message is my response to several Friends. Others wrote to say that my information must be wrong or they would have heard about it from Friends publications or wider Quaker organizations or from individual Friends whoknow a lot more than they do about demography. My comment is to remind Friends that there is a real concern about panic reactions as well as a disinclination among those who have been working for population control to report on the realities of a significantly changing situation in the world. Janet Minshall Signe Wilkinson wrote on 8-19-04 Dear Janet Minshall: I'm just eavesdropping on your e-mail conversations and don't think I've heard all of them but find the issue fascinating if, for no other reason, than that we've been worried about the opposite (population explosion) for so long. I recently re-read the AFSC 1970-ish pamphlet "Who Shall Live?" which broaches the issue of legalizing abortion. It argued for abortion on the most clinical, least spiritual points--basically fearing a population bomb. Even as an ardent pro-choicer, I winced at the mechanistic reasoning. Not only do those arguments seem sort of quaint and overwrought now, but they make one ask whether there ought to be some other rethinking of the Quaker perspective on life/death issues. As to your other points about adjusting to the idea of an older society, the whole Social Security debate comes to mind. John Kerry promised not to touch the retirement age but it seems to me idiotic not to. Certainly some people have had jobs that physically can't be sustained at older ages and shouldn't be expected to go on after their health has given out. But most Friends and many other Americans aren't in that category. You are the expert. Perhaps you could comment on whether retiring at 65 doesn't mean having 30 years where other people are going to be taking care of you in one way or another. Shouldn't we be thinking about working a good deal longer--even if we ratchet back the intensity of our work or kind of work we do? If you already discussed them, forgive me, but I'd love to hear some ideas about how reforms now might help down the line. Signe Wilkinson Janet Minshall wrote on 8-18-04: Dear Friends, In my previous messages, I raised the possibility that the coming decline in world population might well represent the end of our current economic system which is and always has been based on a growing population producing a growing economy. Amazingly, I have heard from Friends who have responded gleefully "Oh good, then we can move quickly on to Socialism and leave behind the evils of Capitalism for good". Aside from the widespread death, disease and dislocation which might accompany any transition to another economic system, the difficulty, of course, is that Socialism hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried. It has been combined with liberal capitalism and democracy in, for example, Scandinavia and several other European countries but as the cost of social entitlements and benefits such as Social Security and private pensions, Medicare, Medicaid and health insurance, schools and private education have grown more and more expensive, those countries have rapidly backed off from Socialism in favor of liberal democratic capitalist alternatives. Even Fidel Castro, dedicated revolutionary Socialist that he is, is said to have encouraged workshops on Capitalist economic development in Cuba to try to remedy the failures of Socialism. Why is that? people ask. "Socialism sounds like such an ideal system." Thats right, it is an ideal system, a utopian system that humankind has never yet managed to achieve. Capitalism developed over many centuries. It wasn't invented or thought up. It evolved out of the experience of our human weaknesses, our greed and our desire for power. It developed alongside our common laws, it became part of our legal system, our property rights, police, courts, and governments, all of which limit the effects of our weaknesses. Capitalism has incorporated those constraints that kept us from too freely expressing our greed and our need for dominance and power individually as well as among clans, tribes and nations. The reason we know so much currently about the excesses of individuals and groups within corporate capitalism is because we have laws, property rights, police, courts and governments to call them to account for thier misdeeds and to make them pay for their greedy power-seeking behavior. Capitalism has also provided financial incentives for individual and group achievement which seem to be much more powerful as motivators of innovation than is the abstract concept of "the greater good". And finally, Capitalism has provided unlimited access to capital even for "the little guy" (finally, in the modern era, women can also be included as they, belatedly, are beginning to have widespread access to capital as well -- as in the Quaker Economic Development Program "Right Sharing of World Resources"). Perhaps the next economic transition will be to something that combines the community-building and socially responsible aspects of what was originally envisioned as Socialism with even wider access to capital and the necessary constraints on greed and power of Capitalism. Despite all of our learning and "civilization", despite all of our modern marvels, the time of transition from our present economy to the next, and the time just after that transition, will likely be ugly and painful. For a time there will be considerably more people than funds and resources to support them. If history teaches us anything it is that times of great change tend to be especially brutal for the poorest and the weakest, the youngest and the oldest, and the process of transition to a new economy may last for a very long time. Janet Minshall -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nwinfrey at bellsouth.net Fri Aug 20 08:23:39 2004 From: nwinfrey at bellsouth.net (Nancy Winfrey) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:23:39 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline:What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? References: <20040820021745.E584018708@kitenet.net> Message-ID: <4125ED4B.000001.01924@NANCY> What I would ideally like to see is working towards identifying different assets that seniors have, and utilizing them for the good of society. Many of us don't have as much "get up and go" as we did in earlier years, and some of us have only partially disabling health concerns. That doesn't mean we can't contribute! How about senior complexes that combine assisted living and after school child care? A senior could work with older children and help tutor them, teach them life skills, and give them an appreciation for the older generation(s) on a part-time basis. How about an assisted living facility where arts and crafts are promoted, taught, and advertised and sold? These kind of enterprises could be operated in a manner which can bring in additional revenue, which could then be used by seniors, many of which have limited income, to offset some of the cost of their living. There could be any number of different assisted living arrangements. We have so much to offer, but just can't quite match the hectic lifestyles and stamina that the younger generations are being subjected to, much less overcome the prejudices and discrimination of most of the workplace. Retired business people could have their own place, operate it, and offer consulting and part time employment services to area businesses! I could go on forever. I would like to be able to select an assisted living arrangement in the future that would utilize my lifelong acquired skills on a part time basis, according to my ability to offset the cost of my being there. I believe this is an area that hasn't even begun to be explored, and would really like to see Friends, as they have for 350+ years, lead the way! Nancy A. Winfrey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: morning-title.gif Type: image/gif Size: 9380 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transparent.gif Type: image/gif Size: 54 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: morning-image.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5315 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 02_tile.gif Type: image/gif Size: 660 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Fri Aug 20 15:45:56 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:45:56 -0400 Subject: Fwd: RE: [saymaListserv] Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline:What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? Message-ID: >Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:39:59 -0400 >To: "Nancy Winfrey" >From: Janet Minshall >Subject: Fwd: RE: [saymaListserv] Future Population Decline:What Are >Our Responsibilities As Friends? > >Hi Again Nancy Winfrey, Great ideas. These are just the kinds of >ideas we need to be talking about and sharing. I expect you read my >message to Signe Wilkinson sent yesterday. She responded to me from >the Quaker Earthcare Witness list with ideas and suggestions. Since >she is in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, I will send your comments on >to her. Thanks for keeping the discussion going. > > > Janet Minshall > >(Sorry, I couldn't open your attachment) J > > > > > >> >> >>What I would ideally like to see is working towards identifying >>different assets that seniors have, and utilizing them for the good >>of society. >> >>Many of us don't have as much "get up and go" as we did in earlier >>years, and some of us have only partially disabling health >>concerns. That doesn't mean we can't contribute! How about senior >>complexes that combine assisted living and after school child care? >>A senior could work with older children and help tutor them, teach >>them life skills, and give them an appreciation for the older >>generation(s) on a part-time basis. >> >>How about an assisted living facility where arts and crafts are >>promoted, taught, and advertised and sold? >> >>These kind of enterprises could be operated in a manner which can >>bring in additional revenue, which could then be used by seniors, >>many of which have limited income, to offset some of the cost of >>their living. There could be any number of different assisted >>living arrangements. We have so much to offer, but just can't >>quite match the hectic lifestyles and stamina that the younger >>generations are being subjected to, much less overcome the >>prejudices and discrimination of most of the workplace. >> >>Retired business people could have their own place, operate it, and >>offer consulting and part time employment services to area >>businesses! I could go on forever. >> >>I would like to be able to select an assisted living arrangement in >>the future that would utilize my lifelong acquired skills on a part >>time basis, according to my ability to offset the cost of my being >>there. I believe this is an area that hasn't even begun to be >>explored, and would really like to see Friends, as they have for >>350+ years, lead the way! >> >>Nancy A. Winfrey >> >> >> >> >>The following document was sent as an embedded object but not >>referenced by the email above: >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list >>posting address: sayma at kitenet.net >>subscribe/unsubscribe: http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: morning-title.gif Type: image/gif Size: 9380 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transparent.gif Type: image/gif Size: 54 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: morning-image.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5315 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Sun Aug 22 19:19:36 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:19:36 -0400 Subject: Fwd: [afmdiscussion] Re: [saymaListserv] Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? Message-ID: >Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:15:32 -0400 >To: "Julia Ewen" >From: Janet Minshall >Subject: [afmdiscussion] Re: [saymaListserv] Fwd: RE: [earthcare] >Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Hi Julia, I couldn't agree with you more. I have spoken to groups >about money and its place in our lives, saving for retirement, and >investing and how to do it for about ten years. I do find that some >of us are much more aware of financial realities now, which is >encouraging. > >Economists expect that future returns on investments will be much, >much lower than they were in the go-go nineties so learning what is >safe and likely to be productive is even more important now than >when just about anything you put your money into went up in value. I >used to recommend "Your Money Or Your Life" by Joe Dominguez and >Vickie Robin. The book is still wonderful as an impetus for >rethinking your relationship with money but it suggests just >investing in US Treasuries. Bonds are at the end of a very long >"up" cycle and will lose value as their interest rates rise over the >coming years. The gains in real estate in the future may be >dramatically lower also as a result of rising interest rates and >higher cost mortgages. There are still relatively safe places to >invest but it is getting harder and harder to find them. Janet >Minshall > > > > > >>Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our >>Responsibilities As Friends? >> >>The problem of declining/aging population in this country is going >>to be exacerbated by the disappearance of a financial cushion that >>nobody really talks about or even thinks about: the accumulated >>savings of the previous several generations. >> >>When I was in investment sales, about three times out of five I >>heard prospective clients assert that they didn't need to put money >>aside or even count on social security because they expected to >>inherit money from their parents in about 10 years and they would >>save up that money for their own old age. >> >>For many of those people I am certain that their dream evaporated >>under the assault of rising taxes and medical costs for their >>elderly parents. Having spent everything they make and maxed out >>their credit, and with practically no safety net of inheritances >>now among middle class people to take the pressure off direct >>transfer of tax moneys from tax payer to Social Security recipient, >>it is necessary that middle class consumerism drive the economy >>upon which taxes are generated from which to pay Social Security >>entitlements. Until savings for the middle class are rewarded as >>well or better than spending, there will be no way to break the >>cycle. >> >> >>For example, I am self employed taking a modest income from my >>business, and the tax break that I would get for doing an IRA or >>other retirement savings is based on my personal income tax >>bracket, the lowest bracket available now, which I think is >>something like 12 percent. However, anything that I BUY for my >>business is deductible against both my self employment tax and my >>FICA tax, which comes to nearly 40 percent. So what looks like the >>better choice to do with my disposable income? Priming the >>consumption pump, of course. It is easy to overlook the fact that >>keeping what I put in savings is better than spending 60 percent of >>it on something I may not really need in order to get the 40 >>percent tax break. However, when that refund check comes in from >>the government, it feels like we are "making money" and when we are >>tying up the money in a long term savings account that we cannot >>easily access without penalties, it feels like we have "spent it". >>And therefore few people try to save as much money as they could.k >>home. >> >>Friends seem to be conflicted about building up money in savings. >>Getting a Friend to talk about that is harder than getting them to >>talk about what goes in Friendly bedrooms! Somehow we seem to think >>that prudent accumulation of money to make sure that we don't fall >>into debt during old age is not in keeping with simplicity and >>right sharing, that not only ought we to "need" as little as >>possible, but that accumulation of money here somehow deprives >>developing nations of something they need. While simplicity is a >>Friendly virtue, pennilessness, leading to debt is not, and early >>Friends were admonished to refrain from debt and some were read out >>of meeting for falling into debt. Since no social safety net >>existed then, we have to assume that either grown children were >>supporting the elderly Friends or they had put money aside or both. >>Perhaps we have minimal appreciation for the developing countries' >>"bank accounts" in the form of the younger generation, because we >>have no appreciation for the practical necessity of savings in any >>form, even the obvious form of accounts for retirement. >> >>I have no dog in this fight any more. I no longer am in investment >>sales. I do marketing for various small businesses--and my main >>client is a health insurance broker who is getting hammered by >>rising costs of his product, diminishing management commitment to >>providing benefits and the instability of employment that makes >>portability of individual benefits a crying-out issue... >> >>And that is only going to get worse rather than better as nuclear >>family caregivers have to work harder and longer to provide for >>themselves and a generation of old people who arrive at old age >>with nothing but what the government is willing to give them. And >>the depletion of caregivers from developing countries populations >>as the able bodied migrate to take up those jobs in the >>developed/aging world at wages that will fall lower and lower will >>create massive population declines there, as people die from >>complications of simple medical issues that merely require another >>person to nurse the ill one and make sure treatmens are >>followed...And eventually that supply of immigrant labor will no >>longer be there...at any price...(There was an article in the >>Washington Post recently about the crisis that is already happening >>in Africa with trained nurses and aides fleeing terrible working >>conditions and "slave" pay in the AIDS assaulted countries there >>for high paying jobs in England and the USA.).. >> >>I think conservatives and liberals, all of us, need to take a new >>look at the issues and become open to creative solutions and worry >>less about political correctness than about how life can be >>improved and stabilized for the greatest number of people... >> >>Julia Parker Ewen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From nc_stereoman at charter.net Sun Aug 22 19:52:23 2004 From: nc_stereoman at charter.net (Steve Livingston) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:52:23 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] capitalism and population decline Message-ID: <4128F977.19170.50A05D9@localhost> Dear Friends, As I have been following the discussions about capitalism, investment, and the possible impact of population decline, I am struck by what seems to be the elephant in the middle of the room to my perception, but maybe not to others. I thought I would test it by articulating my thoughts and listening to what others might respond from a position of greater understanding about economics. It seems to me that since the fall of the USSR, it has become increasingly difficult to remember how much wisdom, ingenuity, advocacy, sacrifice, and suffering were required to reign in the capitalist behemoth from the practices of unsafe and squalid working conditions and rapacious appropriation of natural resources that reigned for hundreds of years before the great labor and environmental movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. These movements may have been caused by capitalism, but in my view that does not recommend capitalism. My interpretation of the "value" of a practice or philosophy is not based on the extent to which it "works" or is "successful", and I recognize that that puts me somewhere on the loony side of mainstream. However "successful" it has been, I perceive the prevailing practices of capitalism to be dependent upon exploitation of growth, rather than promotion of equilibrium. Despite their success, these practices do not resonate with me. The health care industry is a prime example of capitalism at its "best" - or at its worst, depending upon one's point of view. Because we Americans value our own lives so greatly, we are willing to invest our children's inheritance and our solvency in prolonging them. Perhaps if I were more well-to-do, I would share that philosophy, but I have made other choices in my life that have resulted in my being less "successful". At the same time, the industry keeps coming up with new "products" to sell to its "market", at whatever price the market will bear - generally much higher than your typical citizen of, say, Angola, can afford. Is that because the Angolan's life is worth less than the American's? The answer to that may seem simple to an economist, but it is a tough question for this Friend. I wonder if there are other Friends out there who think about these things in similar terms, or if I am just caught up in the wrong century. Steve From sharonannis at comcast.net Wed Aug 25 20:34:00 2004 From: sharonannis at comcast.net ( Sharon Annis) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:34:00 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Quaker Meeting At Southern Dharma Retreat Center Message-ID: <20040826003409.67E6018568@kitenet.net> Dear Friends: Some new attenders or members of your Meetings might be interested in attending. This Retreat will be September 10-12, 2004 Sharon Annis Quaker Meeting at Southern Dharma Retreat Center Out of Silence: Social Action from A Spiritual Base .A Quaker Meeting Southern Dharma Retreat Center is waiving its registration fee to honor all those who are actively engaged in seeking non- violent solutions to our current issues. The retreat includes lodging and three meals a day. Contributions to Southern Dharma can be made at the end of the retreat. Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) arose in England 350 years ago, during the Protestant Revolution. The turmoil of that transitional period led people in many different directions. Quakers, or Friends of the Truth, emerged as a unique form of worship within the Christian experience. Fundamental to Quakers is the belief that there is "that of God" in everyone, thereby we each have the potential for ministry. Worship, in the manner of Friends, is a unique experience where each individual is led to use the God-given capacity to be a minister. We come together as individuals, but meet as one body in expectant waiting. This is not the same as individual meditation, rather it is corporate worship. Within the silence, we receive guidance from the Divine, either directly or through messages offered by others. This experience of corporate activity provides us with guidance for living our lives. Quakers do not profess particular creeds; however, we are encouraged to let our lives speak our faith through living out several "testimonies." Doing so has the effect of sustaining worship throughout the week and incorporating our spiritual lives into our worldly lives. During this retreat, participants will have the opportunity to experience corporate worship as well as Quaker decision-making processes. Participants will experience meeting for worship in the manner of Friends, worship sharing practices, business meetings, and will discuss how Quakers marry "under the care of the meeting" and conduct memorial services. We will share information about the lives of historical Quakers as well as discuss current experiences of Quakers, including their peace work. While most Quakers don't use "thee" and "thou" anymore, we do have some language that is unique to Friends: concepts such as a "sense of the meeting," "unity," "speaking out of the silence," "worship sharing," and a "gathered meeting," will be shared. As is the tradition and practice of Quakers, the retreat will be conducted in the context of worship, and periods of speaking will arise from within the silence. Lorrie Beavers is a member of the West Knoxville Friends Meeting and is a "birthright Friend" with a particular interest in meditation. For six years she has been involved with a Buddhist meditation group based on the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh. She was also a past clerk of the Knoxville meeting. Sharon Annis is a member of the West Knoxville Friends Meeting. She has served on the Religious Education Committee for Friends General Conference (FGC) and is currently clerk of the Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting. Sharon is a "convinced Friend" and her primary focus and passion is the spiritual life of the meeting. She was also a past clerk of the Knoxville meeting. Penelope Wright s a member of the Nashville Friends Meeting for which she currently serves as clerk of the meeting. She also serves as the clerk for the Ministry and Nurture Committee for FGC. As an endorsed "traveling Friend," she travels by invitation to various meetings, usually serving as an elder/traveling companion for one traveling with the ministry. Evan Richardson is a member of the Asheville Monthly Meeting for which she currently serves as clerk of the meeting. Evan and her husband were married in the manner of Friends, "under the care of the meeting." Southern Dharma Retreat Center 1661 West Rd Hot Springs, NC 28743 PH: 828-622-7112 email: info at southerndharma.org www.southerndharma.org Southern Dharma Retreat Center . 1661 West Road . Hot Springs . NC . 28743 Subscribe Unsubscribe Preferences Send To A Friend MyNewsLetterBuilder Link report spam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10731 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1453 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1401 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1096 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Thu Aug 26 10:24:45 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:24:45 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Capitalism and Population Decline: What are Friends Responses and Responsibilities? In-Reply-To: <4128F977.19170.50A05D9@localhost> References: <4128F977.19170.50A05D9@localhost> Message-ID: Hi Steve Livingston, Thanks for joining in the discussion. (Really). I have held this message for several days to make room for others to comment, reply, and/or put in their two cents worth. I have a couple of questions for you at the end regarding your message (I provide four quotes from your posting, respond to them, and then reprint the whole of your message at the end). Steve wrote on 8-23: >It seems to me that since the fall of the USSR, it has become >increasingly difficult to remember how much wisdom, ingenuity, >advocacy, sacrifice, and suffering were required to reign in the >capitalist behemoth from the practices of unsafe and squalid >working conditions and rapacious appropriation of natural resources >that reigned for hundreds of years before the great labor and >environmental movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. These >movements may have been caused by capitalism, but in my view >that does not recommend capitalism. Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you about capitalism must be ignorant of the history of the labor movement and its courageous battles for worker's rights? One of the most powerful books I have ever read on that history was assigned when I was in graduate school studying political economics in the late '70s. It is "Labor's Untold Story" by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais. It was published by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE). The copy I have is from the tenth printing dated 1976 and I actually keep it next to my desk and still use it for reference periodically. It is not the commendable history of the labor movement I question but rather the deception that many union spokespersons indulge in now to win hearts and minds against globalization and against any production done outside the US by non-US workers in poorer countries. Some of the members of the labor movement itself are betraying their own noble heritage. I have been involved in the environmental movement since its inception and have always worked and volunteered and marched on behalf of environmental causes. I grew up in Kentucky and remember my Dad, who was a newspaper reporter/editor, going to the striking coal miners to interview them and get their stories directly rather than take at face value the press releases of the mine owners. He told me of the times his arrival at a union meeting during a strike was accompanied by the echoing clicks of revolvers being cocked by nervous miners. To use the words of an old union song, they wanted to know "Which Side Are You On?" before they let him come in and ask questions. I know which side I'm on. Steve wrote on 8-23: >My interpretation of the "value" of a practice or philosophy is not >based on the extent to which it "works" or is "successful", and I >recognize that that puts me somewhere on the loony side of >mainstream. However "successful" it has been, I perceive the >prevailing practices of capitalism to be dependent upon exploitation >of growth, rather than promotion of equilibrium. Despite their >success, these practices do not resonate with me. I think you might be surprised to know that not caring about the "success" of an economy equates to not caring about its poorest and weakest peoples. It is they who suffer most in countries whose economies are stagnant. If you are opposed to a growth economy then you are the very person who should be eager to learn enough about economics to help devise a workable model for a no-growth society with a massive aging and declining population, something we will likely be facing in the future. It is a very difficult and daunting task. You assume without study that it is the economic system which is to blame for the problems you see around you, when it is actually human greed and power-seeking which are to blame. Those basic human weaknesses must be addressed in any economic system we adopt. Steve wrote on 8-23: >At the same time, the industry keeps coming up with new "products" >to sell to its "market", at whatever price the market will bear - >generally much higher than your typical citizen of, say, Angola, can >afford. Is that because the Angolan's life is worth less than the >American's? The answer to that may seem simple to an economist, >but it is a tough question for this Friend. Industry does not make the decision to manufacture a product unless there are first consumers who wish to buy it. When industry tries to create a demand -- as with the introduction of New Coke some years ago -- they usually fail miserably. Consumers, in the marketplace, determine the kind, quality and quantity of the products to be made based on their own perception of their needs. When industry misjudges the market (the kind, quality or quantity of products to make or import) then the excess sits on store shelves or in warehouses until put on sale at a much reduced price, or until it is eventually sold (most often at a loss to the manufacturer)to "Big Lots" or "The Dollar Store". Each country supplies directly through manufacturing or through importation the products which are sold there. Many of the products made and sold in the US are sold much less expensively in other countries -- as with prescription drugs. Steve wrote on 8-23: > >The health care industry is a prime example of capitalism at its >"best" - or at its worst, depending upon one's point of view. Because >we Americans value our own lives so greatly, we are willing to >invest our children's inheritance and our solvency in prolonging >them. Perhaps if I were more well-to-do, I would share that >philosophy, but I have made other choices in my life that have >resulted in my being less "successful". I, too, made other choices in my life working for very little money, or volunteering, to develop and provide free and low-cost health and human services in areas of poverty where I lived. So I have always been less "successful" just like you. Now I find myself living primarily on Social Security Disability and in fear of any new illness or disease which might disable me further and cost more than Medicare is willing to pay. I have always subsisted pretty close to the limits of my small income, so close that even the co-pays I am charged for healthcare, and the prescription drugs I must take now are considered long and hard before they are purchased. I paid into the system for the Social Security and Medicare benefits I receive many times over during the thirty-five years when I worked and was having and raising children. It was the politicians who squandered the Social Security "surplus" year after year and brought us close to bankrupting the system, not me. IF my children get any inheritance at all it will be whatever is left after I pay to keep myself as healthy and functional as possible. My questions to you are these: At what point do you consider it "spending or investing my children's inheritance" for me to accept the Social Security and Medicare benefits I paid for? At what age do you think it advisable that I kill myself so as not to be a burden to you? Best Regards, Janet Minshall From Steve Livingston 8-23-04 (the whole message): >Dear Friends, > >As I have been following the discussions about capitalism, >investment, and the possible impact of population decline, I am >struck by what seems to be the elephant in the middle of the room >to my perception, but maybe not to others. I thought I would test it >by articulating my thoughts and listening to what others might >respond from a position of greater understanding about economics. > >It seems to me that since the fall of the USSR, it has become >increasingly difficult to remember how much wisdom, ingenuity, >advocacy, sacrifice, and suffering were required to reign in the >capitalist behemoth from the practices of unsafe and squalid >working conditions and rapacious appropriation of natural resources >that reigned for hundreds of years before the great labor and >environmental movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. These >movements may have been caused by capitalism, but in my view >that does not recommend capitalism. > >My interpretation of the "value" of a practice or philosophy is not >based on the extent to which it "works" or is "successful", and I >recognize that that puts me somewhere on the loony side of >mainstream. However "successful" it has been, I perceive the >prevailing practices of capitalism to be dependent upon exploitation >of growth, rather than promotion of equilibrium. Despite their >success, these practices do not resonate with me. > >The health care industry is a prime example of capitalism at its >"best" - or at its worst, depending upon one's point of view. Because >we Americans value our own lives so greatly, we are willing to >invest our children's inheritance and our solvency in prolonging >them. Perhaps if I were more well-to-do, I would share that >philosophy, but I have made other choices in my life that have >resulted in my being less "successful". > >At the same time, the industry keeps coming up with new "products" >to sell to its "market", at whatever price the market will bear - >generally much higher than your typical citizen of, say, Angola, can >afford. Is that because the Angolan's life is worth less than the >American's? The answer to that may seem simple to an economist, >but it is a tough question for this Friend. > >I wonder if there are other Friends out there who think about these >things in similar terms, or if I am just caught up in the wrong >century. > >Steve > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nc_stereoman at charter.net Thu Aug 26 12:11:24 2004 From: nc_stereoman at charter.net (Steve Livingston) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:11:24 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Capitalism and Population Decline: What are Friends Responses and Responsibilities? In-Reply-To: References: <4128F977.19170.50A05D9@localhost> Message-ID: <412DD36C.15950.B2FF799@localhost> Thanks for your interesting reply, Janet. You have certainly demonstrated to me that my lack of clarity could lead to readers getting the wrong impression of my perceptions. You asked why I assumed that anyone who disagrees with me about capitalism must be ignorant of the history of the labor movement and its battles for workers' rights. I apologize for giving that impression. I do not make that assumption at all. In your response you refer to "the commendable history of the labor movement" which I assume to be an endorsment of workers' efforts to promote decent wages and a safe and humane workplace. I meant to raise the question of whether these efforts can be reasonably viewed as a benefit of capitalism. Again I fear there may have been a lack of clearness on my part that seems to have led to the conclusion that I am "opposed to a growth economy". I made no such statement, and did not mean to imply that at all. I am concerned about exploitation rather than about growth. Growth is a natural occurrence which may or may not be beneficial, but a system that depends on exploitation of growth may find itself promoting that which is not beneficial in the absence, or even presence, of that which is. I regret that readers may not have inferred the distinction I wished to make between the economic philosophy versus the prevailing practice of it. I obviously gave you the wrong impression, Janet. I am not opposed to capitalism. I practice it myself, in my own way, and I know - and support - many other people who practice it. In fact, Janet, I agree completely with your observation that "it is actually human greed and power-seeking which are to blame". I see these two forces clearly and frequently at work in the contemporary practice of capitalism, and I see them, more often than not, prevailing. I hope I have now expressed my views on this more clearly. Many citizens are concerned about the fate of Social Security, and rightly so in my opinion. Your comments on this, Janet, do resonate with me to a large extent. However your refutation of supply-side economics does not. I sense from my readings, discussions, and observations, that modern capitalism no longer operates under the old system of "give the customers what they want", but rather under a new system of "tell the customers what they want". I admit to being a mere lay person, and am willing to hear more on this particular question from those who are more expert, but that is certainly the impression I have, and is certainly the focus of my commentary about health care as a commodity. Regarding your two final questions. As for whether you are spending your children's inheritance by accepting Social Security or Medicare payments, I would say no to that. As for what point you should kill yourself in order not to be a burden to me, I would say it is your decision, not mine, and I don't find you a burden at all. On the contrary, I have so far enjoyed your presence. Steve -- Steve Livingston nc_stereoman at charter.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Fri Aug 27 10:54:12 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:54:12 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Capitalism and Population Decline: What are Friends Responses and Responsibilities? In-Reply-To: <412DD36C.15950.B2FF799@localhost> References: <4128F977.19170.50A05D9@localhost> <412DD36C.15950.B2FF799@localhost> Message-ID: Dear Steve Livingston and Nancy Winfrey, Thanks so much for your responses. Steve, you succeeded very well in clarifying your comments. I'm really glad that my message was interesting and that its OK with you if I stick around for awhile. Nancy, I actually have strong feelings about deciding from day to day, from handicap to handicap, whether my quality of life is worth the money and energy it takes. I am aware that using the medications I'm prescribed and taking periodic injections (nerve blocks) of long-acting drugs to limit the chronic pain in my body have put me at significant risk for side effects. I have found, however, that my enjoyment of life, my relationships, my mental and emotional state, and my sense of productivity and accomplishment are so much improved by them that I am willing to take the risks. I think people who haven't experienced chronic pain tend to underestimate the black cloud that it can spread over everything and the unexpected limitations it can impose. I was surpised by my inability, while I was in a fog of pain, to read a book -- the pain was too distracting. I could read magazine and journal articles, editorials and essays, but I couldn't escape into a wonderful novel or become engrossed in reading a long history or a complex analysis that made me think in a new and different way. And I couldn't express myself very well face to face. I often couldn't put my thoughts together and convey them clearly enough to communicate. A few years ago I also lost most of my hearing in one ear and found that the other ear was beginning to fail. Added to the pain, that loss had a huge impact on me as did the diagnosis of glaucoma and early cataract formation which could take my eyes, eventually, too. Right now, though, the computer has made thinking, writing, reading, hearing and seeing all a lot easier for me. So I sincerely bless the medical research and the technology that have given me some relief and support. I am also most grateful to those of you who let me know that you find what I write interesting, stimulating and even enlightening. In Peace, Janet Minshall (Did you notice that Demosthenes is playing basketball on the Greek Olympic team? Now I'm looking for Diogenes to show up among the judges! J.) Steve Livingston wrote on 8-26: Thanks for your interesting reply, Janet. You have certainly demonstrated to me that my lack of clarity could lead to readers getting the wrong impression of my perceptions. You asked why I assumed that anyone who disagrees with me about capitalism must be ignorant of the history of the labor movement and its battles for workers' rights. I apologize for giving that impression. I do not make that assumption at all. In your response you refer to "the commendable history of the labor movement" which I assume to be an endorsment of workers' efforts to promote decent wages and a safe and humane workplace. I meant to raise the question of whether these efforts can be reasonably viewed as a benefit of capitalism. Again I fear there may have been a lack of clearness on my part that seems to have led to the conclusion that I am "opposed to a growth economy". I made no such statement, and did not mean to imply that at all. I am concerned about exploitation rather than about growth. Growth is a natural occurrence which may or may not be beneficial, but a system that depends on exploitation of growth may find itself promoting that which is not beneficial in the absence, or even presence, of that which is. I regret that readers may not have inferred the distinction I wished to make between the economic philosophy versus the prevailing practice of it. I obviously gave you the wrong impression, Janet. I am not opposed to capitalism. I practice it myself, in my own way, and I know - and support - many other people who practice it. In fact, Janet, I agree completely with your observation that "it is actually human greed and power-seeking which are to blame". I see these two forces clearly and frequently at work in the contemporary practice of capitalism, and I see them, more often than not, prevailing. I hope I have now expressed my views on this more clearly. Many citizens are concerned about the fate of Social Security, and rightly so in my opinion. Your comments on this, Janet, do resonate with me to a large extent. However your refutation of supply-side economics does not. I sense from my readings, discussions, and observations, that modern capitalism no longer operates under the old system of "give the customers what they want", but rather under a new system of "tell the customers what they want". I admit to being a mere lay person, and am willing to hear more on this particular question from those who are more expert, but that is certainly the impression I have, and is certainly the focus of my commentary about health care as a commodity. Regarding your two final questions. As for whether you are spending your children's inheritance by accepting Social Security or Medicare payments, I would say no to that. As for what point you should kill yourself in order not to be a burden to me, I would say it is your decision, not mine, and I don't find you a burden at all. On the contrary, I have so far enjoyed your presence. Steve -- Steve Livingston nc_stereoman at charter.net Nancy Winfrey wrote on 9-26: > >The comments about capitalism and the health care industry caught my >attention. I have recently subscribed online to a free newsletter >written by Dr. Mercola, whose clinic is based, I believe in >Illinois. He writes of extensive research, often outside of our >country, into the practices and medications which are prevelant here. > >Please understand that I don't necessarily fault our >well-intentioned doctors and healthcare workers. They are, for the >most part, overworked and underpaid by insurance companies and the >government programs such as Medicare. They can only give limited >time to us due to their heavy expenses for liability insurance, >office staff to process paperwork, supplies, etc. etc. Because of >this time crunch, in order to have any time left to them for family >and recreation or other interests, they must rely heavily on the >drug representatives which visit them, also taking their time. To >explore alternative studies and theories is beyond most of our >doctors' time. > >Dr. Mercola is one of a growing group of MDs (there is a partnership >here in Travelers Rest following this trend) which eschews the >government/insurance paperwork mess, and doesn't staff their offices >accordingly. Unfortunately for those on low incomes like myself, >their fees, which are reasonable, must be paid out of pocket. > >Dr. Mercola outlines a healthy, environmental and diet-based >program, with drugs only used when these lifestyle factors fail. >Instead of treating everything with drugs, the nature-based >physician tries to utilize the natural powers of healing which we >all have. > >His research into the drug company practices is frightening. I am >particularly frightened by the unpublished (in this country) studies >of the side effects of the statins which are being actively marketed >now to an additional 35,000,000 Americans, a market which already is >reputed to have reached a 1.3 billion dollars of income to drug >companies last year! The side effects he cites, according to >alternative and equally scientific studies, can lead to death for an >unacceptable percentage of people. My own experience with this drug >over the last 10 years, and the side effects suffered by myself and >two of my older acquaintances underscore this hazard. > >I am afraid that when I tell my doctor I will no longer take this >drug, that I may have to find another doctor. He relies heavily on >medications for all conditions, and being a specialist in his field, >I can only hope he will be open minded to other opinions. Time will >tell. > >The point of this is that the drug companies in this country are >holding us all hostage, and our elected officials are doing little >to identify, publicize, or remedy the situation. Consider for >instance, that the Tricare drug benefit pays very little to these >companies. The cost of drugs in other countries, including Canada, >is 1/2 to 1/4 of what they cost here. When a drug is needed to >preserve health (and not always is that the case), we are charged >with what the drug companies claim is enough to cover the costs of >overseas countries and government programs, plus their profits, and >they are one of the most profitable sectors of our economy, ranking >right up there with energy! > >Cost of drugs doesn't even begin to address the accounting practices >and media hype about these companies. By the way, if one begins to >try and unravel ownership of these countries at least one large >company, and perhaps many others, are owned by overseas investors >instead of American investors! The tax advantages these >foreign-owned companies enjoy here, and their questionable methods >of accounting seem to add to their profits substantially. > >The reporting of the results of their testing methods is also rather >skewed, according to what I have read. Most drugs are tested on >young, healthy men. Not children, women or the elderly - and the >elderly are the most frequent users of the commonly prescribed drugs >for diabetes, heart disease, and dementia. As we age, as I >understand it, our livers and other organs become less efficient at >filtering out toxins from these drugs, and side effects escalate. I >have yet to see a drug-sponsored test results published which shows >the side effects of any particular drug, much less the most common >ones, broken down according to age! > >In short, I am learning that there is more to the excellent medical >care we receive in this country than meets the eye. Perhaps we need >to begin to be advocates as individuals for our own health, and to >question not only our physicians, but the drug companies about this >drug-oriented medical system. Ultimately, the responsibility for >the state of our health is ours, and after we do all we can to >pursue a healthy lifestyle, then we need to make informed decisions >as to whether we should use available drugs to enhance our quality >of life. It can be devastating to ignore alternative information >about the drugs we take! As Pogo said years ago "we have met the >enemy, and he is us!" > >Nancy Winfrey > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: morning-title_2.gif Type: image/gif Size: 9380 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bright_crow at mindspring.com Mon Aug 30 07:36:42 2004 From: bright_crow at mindspring.com (Mike Shell) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:36:42 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: Free Speech appeal set for Sept 1, Columbia Message-ID: <27129812.1093865802893.JavaMail.root@wamui07.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Friends, Please read and share this account of the Bush Administration's court-sanctioned suppression of free speech in South Carolina. Blessed Be, Michael. --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: SC Progressive Network To: network at scpronet.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:18:09 -0400 Subject: Free Speech appeal set for Sept 1, Columbia Message-ID: August 28, 2004 For Immediate Release: BURSEY FREE SPEECH APPEAL SEPT 1 Wednesday, Sept. 1, 11am, Courtroom 2, Perry Federal Court House, Richland and Lincoln St., Columbia (behind to the federal building at Assembly and Laurel) Brett Bursey will return to federal court Sept. 1 to appeal to U.S. District Court Judge Cameron Curie that his January conviction under the Threatening the President statute be overturned. "I appealed the conviction because the Bush Administration's unconstitutional use of the Secret Service to stifle dissent needs some judicial restraint," Bursey said. The trial is scheduled for 11am. Both sides have been given 30 minutes to make their case. Attorney Lewis Pitts was joined by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a 40-year-old group dedicated to preserving rights granted by the Constitution, to prepare Bursey's appeal. "This case has national significance because it is the only time a peaceful protester has been charged by the federal government for refusing to be corralled into a 'free speech zone.'" Pitts said. "The government is unconstitutionally protecting Mr. Bush's political security by keeping protesters out of sight and out of mind." Jeff Fogel, lead counsel for CCR, said "The use of this federal statute for the first time in Mr. Bursey's case opens up a whole new area of concern about the Bush administration's wholesale assault on civil liberties." Bursey, director of the South Carolina Progressive Network, refused to go to the approved free speech zone during a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C., on Oct. 24, 2002. Bursey was arrested by local police for holding a "No War for Oil" sign in an area where hundreds of Republican supporters, many with signs, were gathering "When the arresting officer told me that the content of my sign was the problem, I decided to take a stand. I thought that if everyone backed down in the face of this foolishness, we soon wouldn't recognize our country," Bursey said. Four months after the arrest, state trespassing charges were dropped and US Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. indicted Bursey under the federal statute that governs threats to the President. Bursey was denied a jury trial and was found guilty by a federal magistrate. He was sentenced to a $500 fine January 6. "I hope everyone who believes that America is a free speech zone will show up Sept. 1 to stand with me against this administration's nationwide assault on our constitutional rights," Bursey said. ### -- South Carolina Progressive Network POB 8325 Columbia SC 29202 803-808-3384 * fax: 803-808-3781 network at scpronet.com www.scpronet.com From nc_stereoman at charter.net Mon Aug 30 09:54:11 2004 From: nc_stereoman at charter.net (Steve Livingston) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:54:11 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: Free Speech appeal set for Sept 1, Columbia In-Reply-To: <27129812.1093865802893.JavaMail.root@wamui07.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4132F943.21866.866A08@localhost> Hello Mike, Thanks for the heads-up concerning Brett Bursey's "threatening of the President" by carrying a placard displaying the wrong slogan. It was interesting to learn that Mr. Bursey has long been a practitioner of what we Quaker's call "speaking truth to power". I have learned that he was arrested 33 years ago for holding an anti-war placard at the exact same airport awaiting the arrival of then-President Nixon. And just a few months later he was sentenced to eighteen months in jail back for spray painting anti-war slogans on a recruiting office building. "In his various causes, both noble and foolish, Mr. Bursey has been arrested dozens of times," according to an article in The Economist. I look around at my fellow Quakers and wonder which of them could be characterized in a similar way. Steve -- Steve Livingston nc_stereoman at charter.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tolsen at tusculum.edu Mon Aug 30 10:47:24 2004 From: tolsen at tusculum.edu (Taimi Olsen) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:47:24 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: Free Speech appeal set for Sept 1, Columbia In-Reply-To: <27129812.1093865802893.JavaMail.root@wamui07.slb.atl.earthlink.net> References: <27129812.1093865802893.JavaMail.root@wamui07.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <41333DFC.7070204@tusculum.edu> Mike, Thank you. I wonder if Friends have suggestions for educating others about the free speech threats we are facing now. Should I look to FCNL? Taimi Olsen Mike Shell wrote: > Friends, > > Please read and share this account of the Bush Administration's court-sanctioned suppression of free speech in South Carolina. > > Blessed Be, > Michael. > > --------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: SC Progressive Network > To: network at scpronet.com > Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:18:09 -0400 > Subject: Free Speech appeal set for Sept 1, Columbia > Message-ID: > > August 28, 2004 > > For Immediate Release: > > BURSEY FREE SPEECH APPEAL SEPT 1 > > Wednesday, Sept. 1, 11am, Courtroom 2, Perry Federal Court House, > Richland and Lincoln St., Columbia (behind to the federal building at > Assembly and Laurel) > > Brett Bursey will return to federal court Sept. 1 to appeal > to U.S. District Court Judge Cameron Curie that his January > conviction under the Threatening the President statute be overturned. > "I appealed the conviction because the Bush Administration's > unconstitutional use of the Secret Service to stifle dissent needs > some judicial restraint," Bursey said. The trial is scheduled for > 11am. Both sides have been given 30 minutes to make their case. > Attorney Lewis Pitts was joined by the Center for > Constitutional Rights, a 40-year-old group dedicated to preserving > rights granted by the Constitution, to prepare Bursey's appeal. > "This case has national significance because it is the only > time a peaceful protester has been charged by the federal government > for refusing to be corralled into a 'free speech zone.'" Pitts said. > "The government is unconstitutionally protecting Mr. Bush's political > security by keeping protesters out of sight and out of mind." > Jeff Fogel, lead counsel for CCR, said "The use of this > federal statute for the first time in Mr. Bursey's case opens up a > whole new area of concern about the Bush administration's wholesale > assault on civil liberties." > Bursey, director of the South Carolina Progressive Network, > refused to go to the approved free speech zone during a Bush visit to > Columbia, S.C., on Oct. 24, 2002. Bursey was arrested by local police > for holding a "No War for Oil" sign in an area where hundreds of > Republican supporters, many with signs, were gathering > "When the arresting officer told me that the content of my > sign was the problem, I decided to take a stand. I thought that if > everyone backed down in the face of this foolishness, we soon > wouldn't recognize our country," Bursey said. > Four months after the arrest, state trespassing charges were > dropped and US Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. indicted Bursey under the > federal statute that governs threats to the President. Bursey was > denied a jury trial and was found guilty by a federal magistrate. He > was sentenced to a $500 fine January 6. > "I hope everyone who believes that America is a free speech > zone will show up Sept. 1 to stand with me against this > administration's nationwide assault on our constitutional rights," > Bursey said. > > ### -- Dr. Taimi Olsen Associate Professor of English Chair, Department of English T C Competency Program Coordinator Tusculum College c/m 5088 Greeneville, TN 37743 423-636-7300 x5234 tolsen at tusculum.edu For web site, see ?faculty pages? www.tusculum.edu From freepolazzo at comcast.net Mon Aug 30 17:41:06 2004 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:41:06 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Re: Free speech is wherever we are In-Reply-To: <41330B66.20780.CD44B4@localhost> References: <4132F943.21866.866A08@localhost> <41330B66.20780.CD44B4@localhost> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20040830173916.02c7b9e8@mail.comcast.net> > > > > > At 09:54 AM 8/30/2004, you wrote: > > > Hello Mike, > > > > "In his various causes, both noble and foolish, Mr. Bursey has been > arrested dozens of times," according to an article in The Economist. I > look around at my fellow Quakers and wonder which of >them could be characterized in a similar way. >Steve Livingstone > > > > > > Hi Steve, > > >I haven't been arrested, but I have lost some very nice jobs because of >speaking my truth. Eventually, this led to my starting my own company, 23 >years ago. This has enabled me to speak my truth to >customers or vendors the past 23 years. > > While I admire that some people need do their protests in public, most > of my peace and justice work happens day in and day out with the people I > hang out with. The tricky part is to not just do that with people who > already see eye to eye with you. Another skill I've developed over the > years is to be heard and hang around long enough for a dialogue to happen. > >Free > From nc_stereoman at charter.net Mon Aug 30 19:26:25 2004 From: nc_stereoman at charter.net (Steve Livingston) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:26:25 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: Free Speech appeal set for Sept 1, Columbia In-Reply-To: <41333DFC.7070204@tusculum.edu> References: <27129812.1093865802893.JavaMail.root@wamui07.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <41337F61.27183.2925061@localhost> Good idea, Taimi! And on the other side of the same canvas . . . what about training and resources for the free speech opportunities we have now? Who's out there teaching about how to use the internet, public access tv, and other modern tools to speak truth more effectively? Steve On 30 Aug 2004 at 10:47, Taimi Olsen wrote: > Mike, > Thank you. > I wonder if Friends have suggestions for educating others about the > free speech threats we are facing now. Should I look to FCNL? Taimi > Olsen From jewen at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 16 19:08:55 2004 From: jewen at bellsouth.net (jewen at bellsouth.net) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:08:55 -0000 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: History lesson to share with your sisters, mothers, partners, and daugh... Message-ID: <000e01c483e6$548d2730$6101a8c0@amd1gig> FW: History lesson to share with your sisters, mothers, partners, and daugh... ----- Original Message ----- From: nan To: 'Julia' Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 12:01 PM Subject: FW: History lesson to share with your sisters, mothers, partners, and daugh... -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Harris [mailto:marilyn at marilynharris.com] Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:13 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: FW: History lesson to share with your sisters, mothers, partners, and daugh... I'm sure we and all our girlfriends vote, but this is a good message just the same. xoxo Subject: History lesson to share with your sisters, mothers, partners, and daughters How women got the vote... The women were innocent and defenseless. And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 helpless women wrongly convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic." They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bar above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air. They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women. Thus unfolded the "Night of Terror" on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote. For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slops--was infested with worms. When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press. So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining? Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie "Iron Jawed Angels." It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder. There was a time when I knew these women well. I met them in college--not in my required American history courses, which barely mentioned them, but in women's history class. That's where I found the irrepressibly brave Alice Paul. Her large, brooding eyes seemed fixed on my own as she stared out from the page."Remember!" she silently beckoned. All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes, it was even inconvenient. My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was. With herself. "One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie," she said. "What would those women think of the way I use--or don't use--my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn." The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her "all over again." HBO will run the movie periodically before releasing it on video and DVD. I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum. I want it shown on Bunko night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order. It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy. The Doctor admonished the men: "Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity." -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jewen at bellsouth.net Fri Aug 20 18:11:16 2004 From: jewen at bellsouth.net (Julia Ewen) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:11:16 -0000 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? References: Message-ID: <000b01c48702$e53cade0$6101a8c0@amd1gig> Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are ODear Friends, The problem of declining/aging population in this country is going to be exacerbated by the disappearance of a financial cushion that nobody really talks about or even thinks about: the accumulated savings of the previous several generations. When I was in investment sales, about three times out of five I heard prospective clients assert that they didn't need to put money aside or even count on social security because they expected to inherit money from their parents in about 10 years and they would save up that money for their own old age. For many of those people I am certain that their dream evaporated under the assault of rising taxes and medical costs for their elderly parents. Having spent everything they make and maxed out their credit, and with practically no safety net of inheritances now among middle class people to take the pressure off direct transfer of tax moneys from tax payer to Social Security recipient, it is necessary that middle class consumerism drive the economy upon which taxes are generated from which to pay Social Security entitlements. Until savings for the middle class are rewarded as well or better than spending, there will be no way to break the cycle. For example, I am self employed taking a modest income from my business, and the tax break that I would get for doing an IRA or other retirement savings is based on my personal income tax bracket, the lowest bracket available now, which I think is something like 12 percent. However, anything that I BUY for my business is deductible against both my self employment tax and my FICA tax, which comes to nearly 40 percent. So what looks like the better choice to do with my disposable income? Priming the consumption pump, of course. It is easy to overlook the fact that keeping what I put in savings is better than spending 60 percent of it on something I may not really need in order to get the 40 percent tax break. However, when that refund check comes in from the government, it feels like we are "making money" and when we are tying up the money in a long term savings account that we cannot easily access without penalties, it feels like we have "spent it". And therefore few people try to save as much money as they could.k home. Friends seem to be conflicted about building up money in savings. Getting a Friend to talk about that is harder than getting them to talk about what goes in Friendly bedrooms! Somehow we seem to think that prudent accumulation of money to make sure that we don't fall into debt during old age is not in keeping with simplicity and right sharing, that not only ought we to "need" as little as possible, but that accumulation of money here somehow deprives developing nations of something they need. While simplicity is a Friendly virtue, pennilessness, leading to debt is not, and early Friends were admonished to refrain from debt and some were read out of meeting for falling into debt. Since no social safety net existed then, we have to assume that either grown children were supporting the elderly Friends or they had put money aside or both. Perhaps we have minimal appreciation for the developing countries' "bank accounts" in the form of the younger generation, because we have no appreciation for the practical necessity of savings in any form, even the obvious form of accounts for retirement. I have no dog in this fight any more. I no longer am in investment sales. I do marketing for various small businesses--and my main client is a health insurance broker who is getting hammered by rising costs of his product, diminishing management commitment to providing benefits and the instability of employment that makes portability of individual benefits a crying-out issue... And that is only going to get worse rather than better as nuclear family caregivers have to work harder and longer to provide for themselves and a generation of old people who arrive at old age with nothing but what the government is willing to give them. And the depletion of caregivers from developing countries populations as the able bodied migrate to take up those jobs in the developed/aging world at wages that will fall lower and lower will create massive population declines there, as people die from complications of simple medical issues that merely require another person to nurse the ill one and make sure treatmens are followed...And eventually that supply of immigrant labor will no longer be there...at any price...(There was an article in the Washington Post recently about the crisis that is already happening in Africa with trained nurses and aides fleeing terrible working conditions and "slave" pay in the AIDS assaulted countries there for high paying jobs in England and the USA.).. I think conservatives and liberals, all of us, need to take a new look at the issues and become open to creative solutions and worry less about political correctness than about how life can be improved and stabilized for the greatest number of people... Julia Parker Ewen AFM/SAYMA ----- Original Message ----- From: Janet Minshall To: afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com ; sayma at kitenet.net Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:59 PM Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsibilities As Friends? Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:48:48 -0400 To: Wilkinson, Signe From: Janet Minshall Subject: RE: [earthcare] Future Population Decline: What Are Our Responsi bilities As Friends? Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: Hi Signe Wilkinson, Thanks so much for the response. It is really refreshing to hear from someone who is interested in the questions raised by some of the new findings about population trends. I find them just as fascinating as they are disturbing. They could serve as an impetus for rethinking much of what we have been doing/saying as Friends for quite awhile. I agree with you about the need to seriously reconsider the age of retirement as well as providing retraining for those who, do to age or disability, have become unable to do the work that they once performed. What is available now for active older people is retail or food preparation work at WalMart or McDonalds at the lowest of all possible wages. That makes no sense for people like me (disabled for the past 13 years since the age of 51) who can still think pretty clearly, who has executive and professional experience, who can use a computer, but who cannot travel to work or work full time due to the untreatable pain in my body. I and others like me get Social Security disability payments, but they amount to less than $1,000 a month. Prescription drugs and healthcare are going up and up despite the Medicare card I carry. And I dread the thought of ever having to depend on "the system" for nursing home care. I hope and pray not to live that long. I'm afraid that the newer information on the prospects of living as part of an aging and declining population are not what Friends wish to hear. The amount of denial among the responses I've received is great. Pasted in below your message is my response to several Friends. Others wrote to say that my information must be wrong or they would have heard about it from Friends publications or wider Quaker organizations or from individual Friends whoknow a lot more than they do about demography. My comment is to remind Friends that there is a real concern about panic reactions as well as a disinclination among those who have been working for population control to report on the realities of a significantly changing situation in the world. Janet Minshall Signe Wilkinson wrote on 8-19-04 Dear Janet Minshall: I'm just eavesdropping on your e-mail conversations and don't think I've heard all of them but find the issue fascinating if, for no other reason, than that we've been worried about the opposite (population explosion) for so long. I recently re-read the AFSC 1970-ish pamphlet "Who Shall Live?" which broaches the issue of legalizing abortion. It argued for abortion on the most clinical, least spiritual points--basically fearing a population bomb. Even as an ardent pro-choicer, I winced at the mechanistic reasoning. Not only do those arguments seem sort of quaint and overwrought now, but they make one ask whether there ought to be some other rethinking of the Quaker perspective on life/death issues. As to your other points about adjusting to the idea of an older society, the whole Social Security debate comes to mind. John Kerry promised not to touch the retirement age but it seems to me idiotic not to. Certainly some people have had jobs that physically can't be sustained at older ages and shouldn't be expected to go on after their health has given out. But most Friends and many other Americans aren't in that category. You are the expert. Perhaps you could comment on whether retiring at 65 doesn't mean having 30 years where other people are going to be taking care of you in one way or another. Shouldn't we be thinking about working a good deal longer--even if we ratchet back the intensity of our work or kind of work we do? If you already discussed them, forgive me, but I'd love to hear some ideas about how reforms now might help down the line. Signe Wilkinson Janet Minshall wrote on 8-18-04: Dear Friends, In my previous messages, I raised the possibility that the coming decline in world population might well represent the end of our current economic system which is and always has been based on a growing population producing a growing economy. Amazingly, I have heard from Friends who have responded gleefully "Oh good, then we can move quickly on to Socialism and leave behind the evils of Capitalism for good". Aside from the widespread death, disease and dislocation which might accompany any transition to another economic system, the difficulty, of course, is that Socialism hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried. It has been combined with liberal capitalism and democracy in, for example, Scandinavia and several other European countries but as the cost of social entitlements and benefits such as Social Security and private pensions, Medicare, Medicaid and health insurance, schools and private education have grown more and more expensive, those countries have rapidly backed off from Socialism in favor of liberal democratic capitalist alternatives. Even Fidel Castro, dedicated revolutionary Socialist that he is, is said to have encouraged workshops on Capitalist economic development in Cuba to try to remedy the failures of Socialism. Why is that? people ask. "Socialism sounds like such an ideal system." Thats right, it is an ideal system, a utopian system that humankind has never yet managed to achieve. Capitalism developed over many centuries. It wasn't invented or thought up. It evolved out of the experience of our human weaknesses, our greed and our desire for power. It developed alongside our common laws, it became part of our legal system, our property rights, police, courts, and governments, all of which limit the effects of our weaknesses. Capitalism has incorporated those constraints that kept us from too freely expressing our greed and our need for dominance and power individually as well as among clans, tribes and nations. The reason we know so much currently about the excesses of individuals and groups within corporate capitalism is because we have laws, property rights, police, courts and governments to call them to account for thier misdeeds and to make them pay for their greedy power-seeking behavior. Capitalism has also provided financial incentives for individual and group achievement which seem to be much more powerful as motivators of innovation than is the abstract concept of "the greater good". And finally, Capitalism has provided unlimited access to capital even for "the little guy" (finally, in the modern era, women can also be included as they, belatedly, are beginning to have widespread access to capital as well -- as in the Quaker Economic Development Program "Right Sharing of World Resources"). Perhaps the next economic transition will be to something that combines the community-building and socially responsible aspects of what was originally envisioned as Socialism with even wider access to capital and the necessary constraints on greed and power of Capitalism. Despite all of our learning and "civilization", despite all of our modern marvels, the time of transition from our present economy to the next, and the time just after that transition, will likely be ugly and painful. For a time there will be considerably more people than funds and resources to support them. If history teaches us anything it is that times of great change tend to be especially brutal for the poorest and the weakest, the youngest and the oldest, and the process of transition to a new economy may last for a very long time. Janet Minshall ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list posting address: sayma at kitenet.net subscribe/unsubscribe: http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jewen at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 14 21:22:42 2004 From: jewen at bellsouth.net (jewen at bellsouth.net) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 01:22:42 -0000 Subject: [saymaListserv] Good vs. bad capitalism References: <6.1.2.0.2.20040814173903.02f72420@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <002601c48266$afb1b2b0$6101a8c0@amd1gig> And take a look (again) at Walter Wink's series of books on the Powers and Principalities, especially the general work, The Powers That Be. Even when one has an "angel" in one's corner, a power, whether political or coroporate, can face heavy going...and be thwarted not only by its own flawed nature but by well-intentioned and well-disposed other "entities"... They all benefit from intercessory prayer...yes, it does work. See Wink. Julia ----- Original Message ----- From: free polazzo To: sayma at kitenet.net Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [saymaListserv] Good vs. bad capitalism Hi Larry, Friend speaks my mind. Thanks for helping Friends understand that all corporations are not the same. Just like people, there are good and there are bad and there are in between and they even change their spots! Once an organization grows beyond "human" scale, trouble begins. Max Weber wrote about bureaucracy and how it stifles people's best intentions. http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Weber/WEBERW8.HTML I also recommend Reinhold Neighber's book "Moral Man and Immoral Society" as a further study on why it is tough for any group to be "moral". (even Friends). I maintain that it isn't only For Profit large corporations that can do "bad'. Not for profit (I call them Tax Exempt) corporations can be placed in the same category as the rest. Regards, Free PS: I am part owner of a small business. Check us out at : www.friendlysystems.com At 02:17 PM 8/11/2004, you wrote: Friends, There has been some conversation on this list lamenting the negative opinion many modern Quakers alledgely hold about business. Another way to frame the discussion is about what kinds of business are good and what kinds are bad. E.F. Shumacher took this approach. Rather than uncritically condemning or embracing capitalism, he tried to discern what scale of economic endeavor was best, with "best" defined as community health rather than size per se or the wealth of corporate executives and investors. In my mind, my father owned a "good" business, one that provided support for my family and those of 6-8 other people. He lived in the community in which his business was located and worked tirelessly on behalf of the common good through various groups like Rotary International. In Appalachia where I live, it is easy to see examples of "bad" business that extracts wealth from the region, destroys the land and viewscape, and pays back little in terms of wages or taxes for local social infrastructure like schools. A historic study around 1980 found that the extent of absentee ownership of wealth in Appalachia was inversely related to a county's well-being in terms of such measures as poverty, income, and social capital. Here is a provocative article by David Harvey critiquing current trends in today's business world. While it may appear negative to business, I see it as trying to discern a happy medium between greed and impoverishment. Hope you find it informative. Peace like a river, Guy Larry Osborne ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list posting address: sayma at kitenet.net subscribe/unsubscribe: http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jewen at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 15 19:44:56 2004 From: jewen at bellsouth.net (jewen at bellsouth.net) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:44:56 -0000 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: Is Population Decline A Greater Threat Now Than Population Growth? References: Message-ID: <000001c48322$2ce246d0$6101a8c0@amd1gig> Fwd: Is Population Decline A Greater Threat Now Than PopulThanks to Janet for a very clear and compelling statement of the impact of declining birth rates. Janet wrote in part: "... Actually our efforts to tell anyone what to do with their fertility raises issues of arrogance, racism and imperialism and seems not to have much effect anyway. It has been shown convincingly that economic development and improvement in standards of living actually do influence the number of babies women choose to have (as shown in your World Population Growth printout). The better off women are, and the more secure they feel, the fewer babies they have. " I am disappointed that Janet did not go farther into the issues of sexism and gender discrimination in connection with population policy here and worldwide. I suppose she did not do so because the article she cited did not discuss these issues at all. I assume that the reference to women's feelings re security is financial and economic in focus rather than emotional/social, although the emotional/social experience of women ought to be considered much more than it is. It does not lend itself to "objective measurement" and so is neglected by most researchers. I agree that as a country's economy develops and more resources can be devoted to the health and education of women and their children, and it becomes apparent that Mom and Dad will be supported adequately in their declining years by fewer offspring, that women and men both are content with having fewer live births in the family. However, whether women are feeling emotionally and socially more secure or not is open to question IMHO. And it is not an unimportant question. We in this country are still dealing with adjustments by both men and women to changing views of women's role in our own culture, and while the problems associated with economic independence for women are different from those of economic dependence, it is still a struggle for many women to affirm success in their "persuit of happiness". In the developing countries, when women's traditional role as provider of babies and home/hearth services is diminished in economic importance, without a simultaneous broadening and burgeoning of other social and economic roles, the result for a number of women may in fact be the loss of the traditional "safety nets" and "dependents' rights"--making life more challenging and less secure financially and economically. We see the issues acted out in our culture among the working poor--single and divorced mothers... Additionally on the African continent, AIDS has removed nearly a whole generation of adult women, who would have been a bridge between generations. The anti-woman aspects of polygamy and chattel status of women seem to be retained without a counterbalance of valuing women outside traditional roles. In fact opportunity for success in such roles seems to be greatly diminished, because orphaned chidren are more than making up for the places in households that might have formerly been filled by the natural birth rate. In a word, too few able bodied producing adults are trying to care for too many children, many of whom are sick with AIDs, having been born with it. I am sure that grandfathers and brothers are probably being pressed into service by necessity, but the great preponderence of caregivers to surviving children are still female. What a cosmic joke! The very mechanism of precipitous decline has overburdened surviving females with more children and fewer resources to rear them than in the traditional culture. In a word the promised benefits of population decline have been trumped by the very precipitous decline in population! And it is hitting females harder than males! And this is within a uniform racial group and within a culture that despite colonial heritage is now politically independent. So racial issues and colonialist issues are in fact secondary to gender impact issues. But nobody is talking about it! Over half the earth's population is female. And fertility issues impact more directly upon females, because worldwide, despite Western technology, it is still females who bear and rear children--by and large. The issue of declining population is therefore not just a matter of "us" white Western culture people vs "those" "people of color, nonWestern" folks or even of Western vs Eastern dominance. And the issues are not really unfamiliar to us. If we are honest about our own "his(hers)story." We have been dealing with the same problems ourselves, though cushioned by a strong economy and the accumulated savings of several previous generations. But as the article indicates, that economic train is slowing down and stopping. That margin of stored money/labor is being spent at lightning speed. Will the increasing awareness of the economic value of births result in further freeing and rewarding of women? The question is one for us as well as for the developing countries. History suggests to me that initially there are freedoms and rewards for women because a scarce resource is valued by men. However once the supply is securely established, there is a massive effort to control if not rechattelize women. It happened in the history of our Westward expansion here and it happened following WW II . I can see how it could happen to women in developing countries also. Bride prices could initially go up, and men could tolerate "free" behavior by women who are in a seller's market position--for a while. But unless the fundamental view of women as property to be controlled and traded is changed, the countertrend may set women back a century or more. We might not be immune here either. As fewer good paying jobs are available here, with the offshoring of more and more types of work, there may be a backlash against women's education and promotion to good paying jobs. And with immigrants taking the worse paid jobs, where will there be for native-born American women to go--except home? In a final irony, has it been the ZPG liberals who accomplished what the Pat Robertsons and Phyllis Schlaffys couldn't--the confinement of American women to home and childrearing again? The Dark Ages will be returning in more ways than one. And we have not even gone into the "what-if" scenario of radical Islam and the Sharia gaining more and more poltical control in the developing world... Julia Parker Ewen AFM PS Women's Equality Day is August 26--the anniversary of the amendment to the US Constitution that gave women in every state the right to vote, serve on juries, own property...Celebrate it, and encourage every woman you know to register to vote if she is not already. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jewen at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 22 18:19:41 2004 From: jewen at bellsouth.net (Julia Ewen) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 22:19:41 -0000 Subject: [saymaListserv] Not For Ourselves Alone Message-ID: <001301c48896$776583b0$6101a8c0@amd1gig> For those Friends who missed Ken Burns's wonderful PBS biography this afternoon of Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, go to "pbs.org/ken burns", where you will find an interactive promo that will give you a nutshell view. I was unable to get a date for rebroadcast, but part II of this documentary will air on the next "American Stories" slot. Today's segment took the story up through the end of the War Between the States. There is much material about the antislavery movement and the establishment of civil rights for African American men, since the anti-slavery movement, the Temperence Movement and the Women's Equality Movement were constituted by a number of the same people. There is a good segment on how the 14th and 15th amendements came to be written by Congress with wording that intentially applied only to males, targeted "former condition of servitude" and specifically thereby excluded women of all colors, whose "condition of servitude" --chattel status-- was not "former" but on-going! August 26 is Women's Equality Day, the anniversary of the day when the Women's Suffrage Amendment was ratified--by a margin of ONE vote! Cast by a man who changed his mind and voted yes, when his mother sent him a note, asking him to do it... My own grandmother at the age of 33 on November 2, 1920, became the first woman in her family ever to vote. In honor of Anthony, Stanton, and all of the millions of mothers and grandmothers and others who braved abuse, beatings, torture, and jail to bring us to where we are today, ask your female Friends if they are registered to vote, and if not, encourage them to do so. One vote does make a difference. Julia Parker Ewen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jewen at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 24 10:04:54 2004 From: jewen at bellsouth.net (Julia Ewen) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:04:54 -0000 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: film Message-ID: <000701c489e3$ac242d10$6101a8c0@amd1gig> Some Friends are inclined to treat the Women's Equality Movement as "Civil Rights Light". Read below, and if you have HBO tune in the movie, about what women have suffered in this country alone in order to be treated as people and not as property. Women's Equalilty Day is August 26, the anniversary of the 1920 amendment to the Constitution which gave women the right to vote in every state of the United States of America. On November 2, 1920, women voted for the first time. My grandmother was 33 years old when she cast her ballot that day, the first woman in our family ever to do so. It was 1976 before various states passed legislation to nullify some chattel laws that remained in force despite the amendment. And since the ERA never passed, there are still some laws affecting women's civil rights that never were overturned. This is not ancient history, Friends, any more than racial discrimination became ancient history with the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments. It is a start. Let us take a moment on August 26 to hold in loving memory all the women who have made our own rights possible and hold in the Light the millions of women who are still without theirs. Julia Parker Ewen (There was also a series aired a number of years back on Masterpiece Theater (PBS) called "Shoulder to Shoulder" about the Pankhurst sisters and the Suffragette Movement in England, which secured civil rights for women 20 years before American women got theirs. We were/are not necessarily the front runners in this international movement which continues worldwide today.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy Whitt" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 8:45 AM Subject: film > The film mentioned here, "Iron Jawed Angels," is scheduled to premier > on HBO on Sunday, February 15, at 9:30 pm. The VHS and DVD of the film > will be released on September 7, and will be available for purchase. > This from my friend who said to me "why should I vote" until she saw a > certain movie.....this is her story. Please share it. Linda > > A short history lesson on the privilege of voting... > > The women were innocent and defenseless. And by the end of the night, > they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their > warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly > convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic." > > They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head > and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air. They > hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed > and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was > dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the > guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, > twisting and kicking the women. Thus unfolded the "Night of Terror" on ! > Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia > ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there > because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right > to vote. > > For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their > food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms. When one of the > leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a > chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until > she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was > smuggled out to the press. > > So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, > exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote > doesn't matter? It's raining? > > Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie > "Iron Jawed Angels." It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women > waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my > sa! y. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder. > > All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the > actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. > Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. > Sometimes it was inconvenient. > > My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO > movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked > angry. She was--with herself. "One thought kept coming back to me as I > watched that movie," she said. "What would those women think of the way > I use--or don't use--my right to vote? All of us take it for granted > now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn." > The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her "all over > again." > > HBO will run the movie periodically before releasing it on video and > DVD. > > I wish all history; social studies and government teachers would > include the movie in their curriculum. I w! ant it shown on Bunko night, > too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea > of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, > and I think a little shock therapy is in order. > > It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a > psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be > permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor > refuse. > > Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy. > The doctor admonished the men: "Courage in women is often mistaken for > insanity." > >