^^^Living on Less [July 2003 Archive]

Current Journal Page <+> Contact Us If you send us your comments we will (probably) post them. <+> Our Web Sites The Common Wheel Collective Book on Collective Process <+> Journal Archives 2003 | m | j | j | a | s | o | <+> Link to Us <+> Book List <+> Odd and Interesting Links June 16, 2003 Boxbots Doorknobs Log Drawings by Huaorani children. From the Ashes: Rants "Eating walnut croquettes and broiled peanuts with the 'straight edgers'," 1906 Slave Letters, 1838 War Relocation Camps, 1942-1946 Basic Dumpster Diving Bob the earthling's dumpster diving page. Raising chickens for the homesteader. iSee: itineraries free of video surveillance. Mole People Institutions shaping death's meaning and occurrence. [Links Described and Archived] <+> Journals and Weblogs Abada Abada Alana's Dear Blog Aldahlia All About George Beyond Zoe's Diary Blankespoor Blogs Buttermilk & Molasses c71123 The Daily Plummet Dru Blood Experiment The Green Man Gujari Girl Invisible Adjunct Lorenzo's blog Misnomer Monumental Mistake Nature is Profligate Nothing Nice To Say Path to Freedom Provenance Unknown Rebecca's Pocket Red Polka Rural Dreams Steven Rubio's Online Life There Are Anarchists In New York!! Treesit Blog Where Is Raed? Wood's Lot <+> Recommended Web Sites 50 Years is Enough AKPress Anarchist Communitarian Network Anti-Slavery Better Times Brazilian Landless Workers Movement Brecht Forum Catholic Worker Collective Action Notes Committee to Protect Journalists Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador Crimethinc East Bay Food Not Bombs End Page Archives Enough Free Free Now Fundación ESPERANZA Green Socialist Network Indymedia Infoshop Institute for Social Ecology John Gray Just the Facts Kamunist Kranti Kensington Welfare Rights Union Noam Chomsky Archive Ontario Coalition Against Poverty Organic Consumers Association Overcoming Consumerism Oxfam Pacific Environment Path to Freedom Urban Homesteading Peasant Movement of the Philippines People Against Oppression and War Peoples´ Global Action Poor News Network Reclaim the Streets Ruckus Society Shack/Slum Dwellers’ International The View From the Ground We the People Media <+>

^^^ Current Journal Entries: [a] Expense Log <><> [R] The Logical and Selfish Reasons <><> [a] Sickness <><> [a] The Rest of the World <><> [a] Updated Book List <><> [R] ...For the Elimination of Television? <><> [a] TV Log <><> [a] Profs Say: People Can Learn To Save <><> [R] Bastille Day <><> [a] Urban Garden? <><> [Guest] Listing <><> [a] Wealth Distribution in the U.S. <><> [R] Meanwhile...More Poverty "At Home" <><> [a] What is the Cost of Living? <><> [a] Making Lists <><> [R] Breakdown in Computers...and Time <><> <^><^><^><^><^> ^^^ July 29, 2003         Expense Log [asfo_del] Expense Log, 30 Days June 25, 2003 - July 24, 2003 Day 1) pizza slice, $1.50; bus ride, $2; cookies, $1; beans, $1.19; peas, $.69; tomatoes, $1.30 2) tomato sauce, $.59; beans, $.60; cookies, $.35; bread, $1.05; subway ride, $1.67*; subway ride, $1.67; Chinese food, $8; seltzer, $1.25 3) cashews, $1; cookies, $3; library fine, $1.70; bus ride, $1.67** 4) beer (for guests), $8; mayonnaise, $2; vinegar, $1; beans, $1.19; bell peppers, $.75***; corn oil, $1.25; lemonade, $.82 5) cookies, $1; candy bar, $.60; adhesive tape, $1.09 6) ginger ale, $1.75; cookies, $5; potatoes, $.90; beans, $1.09; tomato sauce, $.37; tuna, $1.20; chick peas, $.25; flour tortillas, $.40; corn tortillas, $.70; tomatoes, $1; yellow rice, $.34; mushrooms, $.50; pasta, $.59; beans, $1.10; black pepper, $.50; cheese, $1.65; salsa, $.40; lettuce, $.50; green bell peppers, $1.40; red bell peppers, $1.16; eggplant, $.75; vinegar, $.40; corn, $.37; onions, $.30; pen, $2 7) computer discs, $4.22; picture frame (for gift), $16; three artist's painting boards, $13; toiletries, $4 8) $0 9) $0 10) ice cream, $1; chocolate bar, $.60 11) beans, $1.40; cheese, $1.89; toilet paper, $1; subway ride, $1.67; subway ride, $1.67; bus ride, $1.67 12) cashews, $1; grape juice, $1.25; ice cream, $1.25; lemonade, $1.75 13) bread, $2; tomato sauce, $.60; cookies, $3; laundry, $1.25 14) bus ride, $1.67; bus ride, $1.67; ice cream, $1.25; pretzels, $.25; peanuts, $.50 15) shower curtain, $2; telephone cord, $1; chick peas, $.50; beets, $.30; tuna, $69; black beans, $.50; salsa, $.40; cheese, $.70; tomato sauce, $.37; sour cream, $.60; onions, $1; potatoes, $.90; pasta, $.90; yellow rice, $.50; avocado, $.99; mushrooms, $.80; tomatoes, $1 16) ice cream, $1.25; candy bar, $.60 17) snack cakes, $.89; candy bar, $.60; donuts, $1 18) Cajun snack mix, $1; orange juice, $1; chocolate bar, $1.71; reinforcing stickers for binder paper, $2.50; canvas boards, $11.50; artist's painting board, $5; acrylic paint, $3; paintbrush, $2.60; bus ride, $1.67; bus ride, $1.67 19) bread, $2.09; cashews, $1; candy bars, $.1.20 20) snack cakes, $.89; candy bars, $1.80; pretzels, $.25 21) toilet paper, $.65; snack cake, $.25; cookies, $.50; phone card, $10 22) zucchini, $1.50; tuna, $69; dried beans, $.99; lentils, $.50; cheese, $3.38; bread, $.50; snack cakes, $.89; cashews, $1 23) loan, $.50 24) bus ride, $1.67; bus ride, $1.67; cashews, $1; trail mix, $1; orange juice, $1; cookies, $1 25) ice cream, $1; bus ride, $1.67; snack cakes, $.89; soda, $1.50; pads, $2.50 26) ice cream, $1.25; cookies, $3.70 27) ice cream, $1.25; bus ride, $1.67; bell peppers, $1; chocolate, $1.19 28) ice cream, $1.25; cookies, $1 29) phone card, $5; bananas, $.75; cookies, $1; digital camera, $34.90 30) bus ride, $1.67; tofu, $1.79; biodegradable bar soap, $1.39; biodegradable(?) shampoo, $2.50; biodegradable dishwashing liquid, $2.99; recycled toilet paper, $.99; recycled paper towels, $2.19; candy bar, $.60 * A bus or subway ride in NYC is $2. However, you can buy a six-ride card for $10, making the cost of each ride taken on that card $1.67. **Whenever possible, I take a different bus (line) on the way back, even if I have to walk a few extra blocks to do it. That way, I can use a transfer instead of having to pay for another ride. ***Some prices may seem low because I'm only listing the amount that I paid for whenever Mike and I split a bill in half. --------------------------------------- Expense Log by Category June 25, 2003 - July 24, 2003 FOODS EATING OUT pizza slice, $1.50; Chinese food, $8; (TOT.: $9.50) GROCERIES (FOOD) beans, $7.07; chick peas, $.75; peas, $.69; tomatoes, $3.30; tomato sauce, $1.93; bread, $4.64; cheese, $7.62; pasta, $1.49; bananas, $.75; green bell peppers, $3.15; red bell peppers, $1.16; zucchini, $1.50; dried beans, $.99; lentils, $.50; beets, $.30; tuna, $2.58; salsa, $.40; sour cream, $.60; onions, $1.30; potatoes, $1.80; yellow rice, $.84; avocado, $.99; mushrooms, $1.30; flour tortillas, $.40; corn tortillas, $.70; black pepper, $.50; salsa, $.40; lettuce, $.50; eggplant, $.75; corn, $.37; mayonnaise, $2; vinegar, $1.40; corn oil, $1.25; tofu, $1.79; (TOT.: $56.71) HEALTHY SNACKS cashews, $5; trail mix, $1; pretzels, $.50; Cajun snack mix, $1; peanuts, $.50; (TOT.: $8.00) SWEET SNACKS cookies, $19.55; chocolate, $1.19; ice cream, $9.50; snack cakes, $3.81; candy bars, $5.40; chocolate bars, $2.31; donuts, $1; (TOT.: $43.76) BEVERAGES seltzer, $1.25; soda, $1.50; orange juice, $2; lemonade, $2.57; grape juice, $1.25; ginger ale, $1.75; beer (for guests), $8; (TOT.: $18.32) (TOTAL FOR FOODS: $136.29) NON-FOODS TRANSPORTATION subway rides, $6.68; bus rides, $20.37; (TOT.: $27.05) TOILETRIES toilet paper, $2.64; misc. toiletries, $4; pads, $2.50; biodegradable bar soap, $1.39; biodegradable(?) shampoo, $2.50; (TOT.: $13.03) LONG DISTANCE PHONE CARDS phone card, $5; phone card, $10; (TOT.: $15.00) STUFF TO MAKE AND SELL PAINTINGS digital camera, $34.90; canvas boards, $11.50; acrylic paint, $3; paintbrush, $2.60; artist's painting boards, $18; (TOT.: $70.00) HOUSEHOLD GOODS shower curtain, $2; telephone cord, $1; biodegradable dishwashing liquid, $2.99; recycled paper towels, $2.19; (TOT.: $9.18) OTHER STUFF adhesive tape, $1.09; pen, $2; computer discs, $4.22; picture frame (for gift), $16; reinforcing stickers for binder paper, $2.50; (TOT.: $25.81) OTHER EXPENDITURES loan, $.50; laundry, $1.25; library fine, $1.70; (TOT.: $3.45) TOTAL (not including bills): $302.22 BILLS Electric: $16.39 Gas: $4.04 Local phone: $23.75 Rent: $237.50 Internet service provider: $9.95 Web Site: $4.95 GRAND TOTAL: $598.80 ::^::^::^::^::^::^:: ^^^ July 27, 2003        The Logical and Selfish Reasons [Richard] 1. The "logical and selfish" reasons A couple of days ago, asfo_del said, "There are many arguments that can be made as to why everything that happens on the planet should matter to each one of us, including purely logical and selfish ones: whatever happens will in some way have an effect on us. But, personally, I am more interested in the moral reasons." And personally speaking, I have to say, I think I've got a different perspective. I'm acutely interested in the underlying systematic causes that connect all of us in a logical way, and in finding and showing how the horrible problems of the world really do affect most of us, even when we think we might be safely removed from things. I think the reason for this is, at least partly, that I just don't believe a lot of people will be motivated by the simple imperative to "care." In order to make the kinds of major changes that are necessary -- revolutionary changes, you might say -- a lot people have to feel that the cause for which they're fighting is directly connected to their individual and collective self interest. They have to feel that they're fighting for a better world for themselves as well as others, not just that they're doing something to help some poor people in some far away place. This is the difference between charity or compassion and solidarity. I don't think charity or compassion is enough to motivate most people to participate in a real struggle. Also, charity -- and I'm certainly not saying that asfo_del advocates this -- but traditional charity in the liberal sense allows people to feel superior to those they are helping. It's a matter of helping "disadvantaged people," and often the implication is that such people have less not only materially, but also culturally and maybe intellectually. I've seen this kind of attitude come out in a lot of "progressive" liberals, including people in my own family. I've always found it kind of abhorrent and feel we must take extra steps to avoid giving anyone an excuse to approach global problems that way. When people really feel that their fate is tied up with others', that we are all connected in the struggle, that's a little different. That is solidarity. And that's something that there's probably far too little of in the way most people approach the world's problems right now. 2. Morality Morality is a tricky issue too. I think most morality also comes from collective self-interest (e.g., preservation of the society, species, community...). Morality does sort of evolve and become more deeply imbedded in the social codes than any easily recognizable self preservation or self interest. But often, morals then erode when the social circumstances don't really demand them. For instance, I often think about how much lying I see around me. The liars aren't only in our government and corporations; they're also in our "anti-authoritarian" movements. I think people are extensively encouraged to lie in one way or another throughout their lives, in order to get jobs or make themselves more popular or gain power or celebrity or find some other way to get ahead in this incredibly competitive society. So a lot of lying goes on with little consequence or remorse. But lying is really more accurately an ethical problem... Which gets to the difference between morals and ethics. Rather than promoting morality, I'm more comfortable promoting ethics. That's because ethics go directly to the heart of how people should treat each other, while morality may carry with it a whole lot of religious baggage and unnecessary prohibition. I don't think we're going to cure the ills of the world by trying to encourage the people in power to have better morals or ethics. We're not going to end exploitation that way either. People don't participate in exploitation simply because they're evil people (though, admittedly, people who manage to become leaders often do have particularly despicable qualities). Rather, it's because they are participating in the system. Poverty is not simply the result of individuals being particularly evil or sadisitc (at least not usually); it's the result of a socio-economic system. Conversely, any benefits that a capitalist enterprise may bring to certain people are not the result of any capitalist wanting to do good for such people; they're the result of said enterprise needing to get better business from customers or consumers. 3. Fighting the system Because the roots of inequality and injustice in this world are so deeply ingrained and systematic, it takes a colossal effort on the part of many people to make the slightest changes. Challenging the system and the powers that run it involves a lot of risk and life dedication. I can't stress enough that, in my estimation, this kind of challenge can only be motivated by a real understanding on each person's part regarding how it relates to his or her own self interest. And it can't be just a few concerned people; it's got to, eventually, be the great masses of people fighting and building for their individual and collective selves. 4. And my desire to change the world...out of self interest Back to the personal level, I don't think that I ever would have become involved in any activism or exploration of social change had I not perceived any possibility for great social change to be in my own self interest. I have been conscious of being exploited in the workplace and often feel that I am at the mercy of the whims of bosses (a feeling that becomes more prounounced when you're a temp worker). I have felt alienated. I have been poor. I've experienced a good amount of social harshness and even violence in my life and have felt that things would have turned out very differently had we lived in a different kind of society. I'm also constantly aware of living in an ecologically damaged environment (how could one not be, living in New York City?) and am more than a little afraid of the consequences further down the road. While I do care about the plight of other people (to some extent, I suppose), my motivation to fight the system and/or find alternatives has never been rooted in do-goodism or great need to prove myself worthy to the rest of mankind or any great drive toward charity. I struggle however I can for a better world mostly because I believe that I would personally be happier in a better world. So, I would say that it is mainly, on my own part, a matter of self interest. !~!~!~!~!~!~! ^^^ July 24, 2003         Sickness [asfo_del] Lately my condition has been really kicking me hard. I'm slightly reluctant to talk about it because a) I don't want to be a complainer, and b) I have found, somewhat to my surprise, that if you tell people you're sick they sometimes pounce on you with sarcasm and hostility. Not often, but when it happens it's unexpected and bewildering. I've been to two doctors this past week, and, as always, the experience is very unsettling. I have a condition for which there is no treatment. And while I can accept this fact with equanimity, doctors cannot. So, while I am so exhausted that I can't accomplish the most mundane everyday tasks, like cleaning up around the house or, sometimes, even taking a walk to the corner, I am being urged by my doctor to exercise. Excuse me, but if I could exercise, then I wouldn't have the problem of being too debilitated to function in the first place. And while healthy people are made stronger by exerting themselves consistently over time, every shred of physical activity I do crushes me, and the more I persevere, the worse I get. The worst part about being in a bad phase ["I am a dead chicken-head," is how I usually put it], or allowing it to become bad by overextending myself, is that when I get that exhausted I become very brittle, impatient, intolerant. I have no reserves of strength or patience left to deal with common annoyances, and sometimes I bark at people, or sometimes I just cry at the drop of a hat. This isn't so hard to imagine, is it? Everyone has had days like this, I think. I remember times when I had to move, and because the lease ended at one apartment on the last of the month but did not begin on the other until the first, we had to move everything we owned in less than one day. After hours of climbing up and down stairs carrying full dresser drawers, after having used up every reserve of energy you ever had, you become a kind of zombie on auto-pilot. And if someone were to suddenly ask you a question or make some unexpected wisecrack you would just stare uncomprehendingly - or maybe you would tell them off. Hasn't everyone been there? Everyone except one of my doctors, apparently. He actually said there is no correlation between physical exhaustion and emotional exhaustion. In other words, if someone is physically exhausted they are not more likely to be irritable. Huh? <>+<>+<>+<>+<> ^^^ July 23, 2003         The Rest of the World [asfo_del] USA Statistics: "The U.S. has the worst record on poverty in the industrialised world - a poverty level which is twice as high as England, which has the second worst record in the industrial world. Tens of millions of people are hungry every night, including millions of children who are suffering from Third World levels of disease and malnutrition. In New York City, the richest city in the world, 40 percent of children live below the poverty line, meaning essentially below subsistence level, deprived of minimal conditions that offer some hope for escape from misery and destitution and violence...." Page 189 "What Will We Tell Our Children?" Jeremy Lee - 1999; http://www.jeremylee.com.au/books.htm World statistics: [these are just a few of many available] Today, across the world, 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day; 3 billion live on under two dollars a day; 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation; 2 billion have no access to electricity. The world's 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). It is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity. The proportion of people in 29 African LDCs [Least Developed Countries] living below $2 per day is 87.5%. Those living under $1 per day comprise 64.9%. Four fifths of the world's population live below what countries in North America and Europe consider the poverty line. The poorest 10% of Americans are still better off than two-thirds of the world population. The world's richest 50 million people earn as much as the poorest 2.7 billion. The richest 1% of the world have income equivalent to the poorest 57%. ---------------------- There is an argument made that those of us who are in the U.S. should care more about poverty in the U.S. because: 1) since the U.S. is a country of outrageous plenty, it is that much more shameful that there are people here who have to struggle without even their basic necessities being met, and 2) people are in a position to influence their own government's actions, so one's energies should be directed domestically, where they are most likely to have an impact. I find these viewpoints somewhat narrow. I believe that we live in a world of plenty, where it is shameful that any person has to endure hardship and deprivation when there is enough for everyone, were it not unfairly distributed. Country borders are arbitrary lines of demarcation established by those in power, often by violent means, to work to their own advantage. In many cases they divide ancestral lands and family. These are not the boundaries we should look to in order to determine who is or is not in our sphere. Everyone who is on the planet is part of our interconnectedness. And as far as influencing our own government: if we believe the argument that we should be able to demand and receive justice from our own politicians, then we should ask them to remedy worldwide, not just domestic, inequality, since the U.S. has a great hand in determining the conditions of the world at large. Unfortunately, ordinary citizens don't stand much of a chance in competing with moneyed corporate interests for the attentions of government officials. [Grassroots efforts aimed directly at the issues, bypassing politicians, are, it seems to me, more likely to yield results.] The United States is very insular. People here are protected from the perceptions and experiences of the rest of the world by consuming only our own media, our own products, and our own ideologies. Many people here appear to honestly believe that the rest of the world doesn't or shouldn't matter to people who have lived and will always live in the U.S. There are many arguments that can be made as to why everything that happens on the planet should matter to each one of us, including purely logical and selfish ones: whatever happens will in some way have an effect on us. But, personally, I am more interested in the moral reasons. It can be difficult sometimes to know what each of us can do as single individuals to combat injustice, poverty, and suffering, but there are no barriers to caring about these issues. ::+::+::+::+::+:: ^^^ July 22, 2003         Updated Book List [asfo_del] [I updated my portion of the book list with remarks on recently read books.] ""==""==""=="" ^^^ July 21, 2003        ...For the Elimination of Television? [Richard] Television just isn’t really a part of my life these days. In fact, I rarely find any use for a TV, and I can’t relate at all, at least on this level, to the millions and millions of Americans who need to turn on their TVs for hours every day. I imagine that I am missing out on a huge chunk of our contemporary culture as it presently exists. I guess that if I watched hours of TV every day, I would feel more in touch with the popular culture around me and, therefore, the American or Western or Northern popular psyche (though I’m not sure if this is a good or bad thing). I feel doubly handicapped in this respect because, like asfo_del, I don’t ever go to the movies either (though I see a good number of independent releases on DVDs -- maybe one every six weeks or so -- hanging out with a good friend (and ex-girlfriend) who’s really into these things). But these are just my tastes and habits, and I don’t feel personally inclined right now to change them, even if it means being out of touch with a lot of people around me. I wasn't always that out of touch with TV. I went through a couple of years during my childhood in the '60s watching something like 8 hours a day. But then I moved on to reading a lot, and enjoying music a lot, being a punk rocker, then dancing in clubs, then being an activist...everything seemed more important than TV. I did have a few years here and there during my young adulthood when I watched a number of hours a week, mainly because of the influence of a girlfriend or other people with whom I was spending much of my time. But strangely enough, TV never became a dependency for me, or much of a big deal. And, yet, I am aware that for a lot of people, there is something genuinely, mind-numbingly addictive about TV. I can tell this just by seeing how much other people watch TV and how much their lives and knowledge seem to revolve around it (I can't begin to count the number of times I had to hear people talking about stupid TV programs while I was trying to work at even stupider jobs). And for this reason, I have checked out a bunch of material written about television and its impact on our society. A number of people have written about the addictive qualities of TV and the way that this medium, in particular, is designed to condition viewers into blindly supporting and accepting the consumer-capitalist culture that it serves. I would recommend reading some of these assessments, because they are very interesting, probably much more so, at least from my perspective, than the medium that they discuss. Probably the scariest among these writers is Jerry Mander, a semi-famous activist and educator who once was an advertising executive. For a while, I had only a passing knowledge of Mander, but I started looking up his works more about three months ago, when Mike and I both saw him speak on a panel organized by our friend Warcry and the Information Liberation Front. Since then, I’ve been revisiting writings by Mander and excerpts from his books, compelled by his well-written and utterly frightening indictments of various aspects of technological society. (Of course, I wouldn't have access to any of this material if it weren't for the Internet, but never mind that.) Mander’s most famous work on television is Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, a very scary book that he wrote about 25 years ago. I am not entirely sure I agree with Mander’s near-Orwellian assessment of television as the ultimate global tool of mind conditioning; I often feel that its horrors are overstated, but that may be because it simply never amounted to much in my life. It could be that I’m just not fully, personally aware of television's pernicious effects. Following, from a page at Eco-action.org, is Mander’s own quick summary of his four arguments (which also appeared in the book Questioning Technology, edited by John Zerzan and Alice Carnes). For now, I will simply pass along these points without further comment. I do, however, recommend that people read more of Mander’s analyses and think about some of the very interesting issues he raises – assuming that you’re not too busy watching TV. "The first argument is theoretical and environmental. It attempts to set the framework by which we can understand television's place in modern society. Yet, this argument is not about television itself. In fact, television will be mentioned only occasionally. It is about a process, already long underway, which has successfully redirected and confined human experience and therefore knowledge and perceived reality. We have all been moved into such a narrow and deprived channel of experience that a dangerous instrument like television can come along and seem useful, interesting, sane, and worthwhile at the same time it further boxes people into a physical and mental condition appropriate for the emergence of autocratic control. "The second argument concerns the emergence of the controllers. That television would be used and expanded by the present powers-that-be was inevitable, and should have been predictable at the outset. The technology permits of no other controllers. "The third argument concerns the effects of television upon individual human bodies and minds, effects which fit the purposes of the people who control the medium. "The fourth argument demonstrates that television has no democratic potential. The technology itself places absolute limits on what may pass through it. The medium, in effect, chooses its own content from a very narrow field of possibilities. The effect is to drastically confine all human understanding within a rigid channel. What binds the four arguments together is that they deal with aspects of television that are not reformable. What is revealed in the end is that there is ideology in the technology itself. To speak of television as 'neutral' and therefore subject to change is as absurd as speaking of the reform of a technology such as guns." !@!@!@!@!@!@!@! ^^^ July 20, 2003         TV Log [asfo_del] The only thing I have to say for myself is that I didn't pay any money to waste this much of my time. The very wise author of the awesome, still-available-in-book-form, Tightwad Gazette, once wrote that the willingness to give up cable could be used as a barometer to gauge how committed a person is to reducing her spending. To a lot of people, the cable bill is just another monthly bill. But to a tightwad, the cable bill is a very expensive and not exactly necessary expenditure. Where I live, basic cable costs $480 a year; digital cable is $720 a year. I have no idea how much premium channels cost. My point is that this is a fortune, at least to me. I have never had cable TV. My theory is that if people had to buy a device every year, like a special television set, in order to be able to watch cable channels, and that device cost $500 and had to be replaced after 12 months, a lot more people would balk at the expense. [On the other hand, if I lived in a remote area where no broadcast signals could be received, I think I would break down and subscribe to a pay-TV service of some kind. It's not worth it to me to have to be alone with my thoughts....] You could say that I am paying for my TV viewing through the ads I am subjected to. Even though I am not purchasing any of the hawked products, the stations can still offer my viewership as a demographic to sell to their advertisers. Nor can I claim to be somehow immune to the effect of propaganda. Who knows how it's warped my thinking? There have been [infrequent] periods when I have watched no TV, and they were very enlightening. When you're away from TV for a significant time, its output seems shockingly crass and absurd when you return to it: the weird sing-song way in which news people talk [and the cheery absence of any real information contained in what they say], their plastic helmet hair, the garishness and shamelessness of advertising images, the ruthlessness and suddenness of the violence, the sadness and self-consciousness of pretty women forcing themselves to appear provocative. These are all cliches, I know. But it's amazing how prominent these perceptions become if you just turn away from their source for a while. When I was kid, my dad was against buying anything that was heavily advertised because the cost is invariably passed on to the purchaser - and because he found advertising to be generally distasteful. We didn't have a TV until I was about seven. Before that, the only place I had seen a TV set was in a store window, where the sets are piled up floor-to-ceiling, all tuned to the same station, gawking at passers-by. ---------------------- TV Log: June 25, 2003 - July 16, 2003 June 25: (part of) Judge Joe Brown, 3:15-3:30pm; (part of) Dr. Phil, 3:30-3:45pm; BBC News, 6:00-6:30pm; (part of) That 70's Show, 8:20-8:30pm; Law & Order, 9:00-10:00pm; Law & Order, 10:00-11:00pm; Local news, 11:00-11:30pm; That 70's Show, 11:30 pm-12:00midnight; Just Shoot Me, 12:00-12:30am. June 26: That 70's Show, 11:30pm-12:00midnight; Just Shoot Me, 12:00-12:30am; (part of) Documentary on Nation of Islam, 12:30-1:00am; That 70's Show, 1:00-1:30am. June 27: BBC News, 6:00-6:30pm; (part of) CBS News, 6:30-6:45pm; (part of) News Hour, 7:00-7:30pm; Crossing Jordan, 8:30-9:00pm; Law & Order, 9:00-10:00pm; Law & Order, 10:00-11:00pm. June 28: { 0 } June 29: Law & Order, 9:00-10:00pm; Crime & Punishment, 10:00-11:00pm. June 30: The View, 11:00-12:00noon; Jeopardy, 7:00-7:30pm; Wheel of Fortune, 7:30-8:00pm; 8 Simple Rules for Dating my Daughter, 8:00-10:00pm. July 1: Everybody Loves Raymond, 7:30-8:00pm; (part of) Gilmore Girls, 8:00-8:15pm; (part of) Documentary on Fireworks, 8:20-9:00pm; The Guardian, 9:00-10:00pm; Judging Amy, 10:00-11:00pm; That 70's Show, 11:30-12:00midnight; (part of) Conan O'Brien, 3:30-4:00am; Local news, 5:00-5:30am. July 2: Spin City, 12:30-1:00am; That 70's Show, 1:00-1:30am; Documentary on Jacob Lawrence, 1:30-2:30am; Documentary on Ben Shahn, 2:30-3:30am; Documentary on Walker Evans, 3:30-4:30am. July 3: New Jersey news, 5:30-6:00pm; BBC News, 6:00-6:30pm; (part of) Nightly Business Report, 6:30-6:40pm; (part of) The Simpsons, 6:40-6:50pm; (part of) Globe Trekker: Jamaica, 8:00-8:45pm; (part of) Scrubs, 8:45-9:00pm; Frontline (Documentary on Edison Schools), 9:00-10:00pm; ER, 10:00-11:00pm; Local news, 11:00-11:30pm; That 70's Show, 11:30-12:00midnight; (part of) Just Shoot Me, 12:00-12:20am; Teachers' In-Service Conference, 2:00-3:00am. July 4: (part of) The Simpsons, 6:55-7:10pm; Seinfeld, 7:30-8:00pm; Carson Daly, 2:30-3:00am; (part of) Jay Leno, 3:00-3:15; Conan O'Brien, 4:00-5:00am. July 5: (part of) Documentary about art (?), 5:30-6:00am; Inside Albany, 6:00-6:30am. July 6: (part of) The Windsors, 2:00-2:30pm; (part of) Law & Order, 9:30-10:00pm; Crime & Punishment, 10:00-11:00pm. July 7: CSI Miami, 10:00-11:00pm; (part of) Local news, 11:00-11:10pm; (part of) That 70's Show, 11:45-12:00midnight; (part of) Just Shoot Me, 12:00-12:20am. July 8: (part of) Local news, 11:00-11:20pm; (part of) Nightline, 11:35-11:45pm; Just Shoot Me, 12:00-12:30am; Spin City, 12:30-1:00am; That 70's Show, 1:00-1:30am; (part of) Jay Leno, 2:05-2:35am; News, 3:00-4:30am. July 9: Law & Order, 9:00-10:00pm; (part of) Local news, 10:00-10:15pm; (part of) That 70's Show, 11:40-12:00midnight; Just Shoot Me, 12:00-12:30am; Spin City, 12:30-1:00am. July 10: Wide Angle, 9:00-10:00pm; ER, 10:00-11:00pm. July 11: (part of) Today Show, 7:30-9:00am; The View, 11:00-12:00noon; (part of) Sabrina the Teenage Witch, 5:25-5:30pm; Will and Grace, 5:30-6:00pm; (part of) BBC News, 6:00-6:10pm; NBC News, 6:30-7:00pm; (part of) Extra, 7:00-7:07pm; The Simpsons, 7:07-7:30pm; (part of) Seinfeld, 7:30-7:45pm; (part of) News Hour, 7:45-8:00pm; (part of) NOW with Bill Moyers, 9:10-10:00pm; Reel NY, 10:00-11:00pm. July 12: (part of) Inside Albany, 1:40-2:00pm; Documentary on Japanese POW camps, 2:00-2:30pm; Extreme Animal Videos, 5:00-6:00pm; Local news, 6:00-6:30pm; ER, 12:30-1:30am. July 13: NY1 Local news, 8:30-9:00am; (part of) The Simpsons, 8:20-8:30pm. July 14: (part of) Today Show, 9:30-10:00am; Wayne Brady, 10:00-11:00am; (part of) The View, 11:00-11:40am. July 15: Regis and Kelly, 9:00-10:00am; Wayne Brady, 10:00-11:00am; The View, 11:00-12:00noon; Local news, 12:00-12:30pm; (part of) The Other Half, 12:30-1:00pm; Montel, 1:00-1:45; Third Rock from the Sun, 2:30-3:00pm; Dr. Phil, 3:00-4:00pm; (part of) Judge Judy, 4:20-4:45pm; (part of) 8 Simple Rules for Dating my Daughter, 8:10-8:25pm. July 16: (part of) Today Show, 8:45-9:15am; (part of) Regis and Kelly, 9:15-10:00am; Wayne Brady, 10:00-11:00am; The View, 11:00-12:00noon; Local news, 12:00-12:30pm; (part of) Will and Grace, 6:30-6:45am; That 70's Show, 8:00-8:30pm; (part of) 60 Minutes II, 8:30-9:00pm; Law & Order, 9:00-10:00pm; Law & Order, 10:00-11:00pm;(part of) Local news, 11:20-11:35pm; (part of) That 70's Show, 11:35-12:00midnight. ^^||^^||^^||^^||^^ ^^^ July 18, 2003         Profs Say: People Can Learn To Save [asfo_del] I have always made very little money. There has only been one year in my lifetime when my income rose into the five figures--meaning it was more than $10,000! Yet I have never struggled financially. For myself, as a single person, an income of about $7000 a year is comfortable. [Because of my illness, I am actually not able to make that now an have to rely on help from other people, so a lot of my observations become sort of moot, not being able to use myself as an example to support my statements. But anyway....] We live in a poor neighborhood. There are people we know well who are struggling terribly to survive, yet their efforts at taking care of their own needs are sabotaged by the enormous social pressure to appear flush, to be a big spender: buying everyone rounds of drinks at the bar, investing in new, cool clothes, impressing girlfriends, wives, and family with lavish gifts. Some of these friends are then unable to pay bills. One of Mike's closest friends doesn't have a place to live and hasn't for many months. He has been floating among various people's homes and basements (including ours), and has even stayed at a homeless shelter, despite making a few hundred dollars every week on a fairly regular basis. [And he's not a "lifestyle" nomad like some of our other friends: he actually would like a nice, normal life.] The difficulty in trying to help someone in that conundrum is that he is a grown-up, and no one has the right to tell him how he should live his life. This is a much broader problem than just one or a few of Mike's friends. Many people in this country, rich and poor alike, have only the media as a example of how one should conduct one's financial affairs. And since the media is owned by corporations who are enriched whenever we turn over our money to them, their only message is spend, spend, spend. I would like to try to help people hang on to more of their money so they can use it to help themselves, their families, their communities, and others who are in need. That is one of the reasons we wrote the Money-Saving Fliers [If anyone knows a non-profit who might be interested in sponsoring us, we are looking for funding to print them in quantity.]. But there is a great social barrier and stigma in talking to people, especially poor people, about their financial choices that I'm not sure how to overcome. First of all, it's just very personal. It's like talking to someone about their sex life. Secondly, it's presumptuous. Who is anybody to tell anybody else what they should do with their money? Thirdly, urging a poor person to spend less money (where possible--many people are so poor they could not possibly spend any less), thereby asking them to forego some of the things the media has taught us to consider necessities, can appear to foster the hateful stereotypes that prejudiced "do-gooders" have labored under in the past (and probably still do, in many cases): that poor people don't deserve--and should not be so greedy as to expect--the nice things that only rich people can afford. ------------------------------------------ I came across mention of a study, in Parade magazine, always a fine read, as I'm sure you can agree....[It's the free rag that comes with a bunch of Sunday papers around the country.] A couple of profs have been looking at the correlation of wealth between parents and their children by following a number of families over the last 30 years, and they found that, among the more predictable factors like similar educational opportunities, same social class and race (they didn't mention the last two actually, which strikes me as pretty absurd...), one of the important reasons why adult children tend to have about the same wealth as their parents, even excluding bequests, is the attitude toward saving money which is passed on through the generations. In other words, parents who are spendthrifts have children who are spendthrifts, and parents who are tightwads have children who are tightwads. The reason why this is interesting, say the authors of the study, and in this regard I would agree with them, is that it shows that people can be taught how to save, thereby opening up the possibility of altering their passed-down-through-the-generations financial fate. Some of the tone of this study doesn't leave a very good taste in my mouth. Still, I find it interesting as a departure point for considering ways of helping people save money. For instance [parenthetical statements are mine]: "What explains the similarity in parent-child wealth? Income and portfolio composition account for the majority of the connection. [Duh!] Hurst and Charles suggest that savings behavior, as measured by the tendency for parents and children to own similar assets, [okay, but some people don't have any assets; not everybody can be made wealthier by saving, not if they have nothing to begin with] is also an important part of the explanation. Children's economic choices may be shaped by their parent's savings tendencies, either through direct learning or simply by being in the same environment." And: The tone of this part really sucks. However,as the Parade blurb puts it: "Hurst thinks we should be giving poor children a financial education to help them develop the tools to escape poverty," which is not in itself a bad notion. "In documenting how children may learn from the savings behavior of their parents, the authors present evidence of an important social phenomenon-people respond to education about finances. This finding has larger policy implications for issues of welfare and inner city development, especially in regards to stimulating the savings of low-income households." Of course, the real problem with this idea is that it can be easily manipulated into an argument that the poor can help themselves by saving--a variation of the "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality--and that, therefore, it's a poor person's own fault if she spends her money instead. If you follow that argument, we should further cut social programs and continue to ignore and actively suppress from the media the fundamental reason for inequality and poverty: that the rich are taking from the poor to such a rapacious extent that there is virtually nothing left to go around. "'If people can learn to save, the question for policymakers then becomes whether these findings can be turned into an actual policy program,' says Hurst. 'People need to learn how to manage the money they receive. Requiring financial literacy courses with the receipt of welfare payments[Great...let's put even more obstacles in the path of people who need welfare to survive....] may improve the long-term economic position of low-income households.'" God forbid we should try to put these findings to use in some positive manner, by offering people tools and services, rather than dangling yet another stick that the welfare system will beat them with if they don't conform to yet another demand. It's unfortunate that this study of a rather interesting idea seems to be motivated by the need to shift responsibility and attention away from the greedy for having created and continuing to maintain the conditions that keep billions in poverty. I have not read the actual study. My comments are based on the article I have linked to throughout this journal entry. The article may not accurately reflect the study. What is notably absent from the article, and I assume, the study itself, though I may be wrong about that, is the notion--which seems obvious enough to me--that people's financial situation is almost entirely determined by the accident of their birth. The apocryphal capitalist myth of a poor, underprivileged boy (there's not usually a girl in this myth) going from "rags to riches" through the benevolent equalizing force of the free market, in which everyone with sufficient spunk and enterprise has the opportunity to make it big, is obviously a crock. In a study such as this, which measures how wealth remains consistent through generations, how can the primary focus not be on privilege? It seems to me that privilege, which can be uncovered in every detail of someone's life when it's present, or be just as glaringly absent in every detail when it's not, is the real conduit through which wealth is passed down. Privilege expresses itself in myriad ways: in the development of one's attitudes about a great variety of issues, in how one sees one's own position in relation to others, in one's expectations, one's self-image, in the choices one thinks are possible and in the range of choices that are actually available to each of us... this list could go on forever. I started out thinking that this study pointed to an idea worth looking at, and I suppose I still believe that it does, but as I wrote about it, the more distasteful the whole study and its implications became, and the more holes I found in it. (::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::) ^^^ July 15, 2003        Bastille Day [Richard] Well, this was going to be my Bastille Day post. Unfortunately, my sleeping schedule was so weird and screwed up from working midnight shifts, that I kind of slept through Bastille Day. I was out and around somewhat during the day (in part to drop off a time sheet at a temp agency by the noon deadline), but I went to sleep when I came back, hoping to nap enough before another anticipated midnight shift. But the rich didn't snap their fingers last night, so there was no need for me to get up and run. Instead, I slept for a couple more hours, having lovely dreams about storming the prisons of New York. On my way back from dropping off my time sheet, I had stopped off on Gansevoort Street, in the old Meat District between the west West Village and west Chelsea, where I used to find a wonderful little Bastille Day festival sponsored by the trendy French diner Florent. Back about fifteen years ago, when I lived not too far from here (in a rent-subsidized Mitchellama apartment, about a mile due south in Tribeca, which I shared with my first common-law wife), I used to look forward to strolling up to Gansevoort Street every year to look at the giant fake guillotine that they always planted in the middle of the block. I don't have much other memory of the Bastille Day festival, except that there were usually a handful of young aspiring actors running around in silly 18th Century costumes. But it was fun having something to do for Bastille Day, a national holiday that I always thought was more fun than our July 4. Unfortunately, there was no trace of the festival to be found. I thought of going into Florent and asking about it, but it was a very nice day out, and I felt too comfortable just strolling around to walk into that trendy French diner in order to query some miserably hip waitresses or nose-in-the air manager about a festival that might have disappeared years ago. (Actually, when I checked some New York Bastille Day listings on the Web later, I found that Florent still did have some kind of celebration, only it started in the evening, beginning at 7:00. But surely, it wasn't the same thing?) So I merely strolled for a while around Gansevoort Street and the Meat District, taking in the humongous changes that had taken place. These days, Gansevoort Street is lined with trendy restaurants where there used to be nothing but closed down warehouses. It seems that Florent, the great celebrator of the French Revolution, initiated a revolution of trendy restaurants -- which sort of makes sense when you consider most historians' idea that the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, establishing the rule of a newly ascendant capitalist class. (Now, if only we could come up with an explanation for that other trendy restaurant five blocks away, in the West Village, called the Paris Commune...) It seems that the Meat District has become a big Money District, far too chic for its own good. Once known for its highly visible population of transgendered street-walking prostitutes, it's now inhabited by a host of flashy boutiques selling dresses that the neighborhood's former entrepreneurs probably couldn't dream of affording. (Many of the "girls" who worked the streets here in the old day were drug addicted and homeless. One wonders where they were swept off to, or where today's equivalents are left to roam. I wouldn't begin to pretend to know that...just as I don't really know what happened to many of the former denizens of Times Square now that it's become Disney World North.) The Meat District also still contains traces of the old businesses for which it was first named -- i.e., meat packaging plants, where men (its just about all men, from what I can tell) are paid inadequate wages to do dangerous work all day, chopping up big pieces of flesh. But these workers kind of stand out like a mangled thumb in contrast to the relatively new tres chic atmosphere. So much for my Bastille Day; at least I'll know where to start (among a few places) when it comes time to storm the haunts of the rich. Now I may try to celebrate another way, by finally reading Kropotkin's acount of the French Revolution , or I might try, once again, to get through Bookchin's extremely densely written (but highly informative) accounts of all the French Revolutions, and the English Revolution, and sundry peasant uprisings, The Third Revolution, Volume I and Volume II. And I might just try to find the French Embassy later today, to see if anybody has joined the international post-Bastille Day protest against the imprisonment of the French farmer and environmentalist Jose Bove, now serving his second week out of a possible ten-month sentence for destroying genetically modified crops. I never really cared much for big commemorative holiday celebrations anyway, at least not in general, especially in recent years -- which is one of many reasons why, aside from reading a little Thomas Paine, I just about ignored July 4. It's better to focus on the present and future. I've always said that. And there are certainly many opportunities coming up: more anti-globalization protests, national political conventions to protest, and lots of people being screwed over by the rich, ready to join together and revolt at any moment...I wish. I don't know, really, what possessed me today...except, maybe, a strange burning desire to see that beautiful big fake guillotine in the middle of the street. (@)(@)(@)(@)(@) ^^^ July 14, 2003         Urban Garden? [asfo_del] Quotations are from Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe, an amazing and exhaustive resource on urban agriculture. "In Russia, food production on large-scale rural farms fell by 40 percent since Soviet times, making the cost of food very high on the new free market. Many Russians have survived through access to...small plots of land given to citizens..., which produce thirty percent of the total food grown in the country and 80 percent of the vegetables[!!!]." [emphasis added] Urban gardening has huge potential for alleviating food scarcity among the urban poor, providing more nutritious alternatives to unhealthy and expensive fast or highly processed food, reducing dependence on corporate agriculture, reducing the pollution generated and resources expended in moving foods over long distances ("the average supermarket food item in North America travel[s] 1400 miles"), building community and reciprocity among neighbors, and, of course, it is a nearly free source of sustenance. Having said that, my own attempts at gardening have been disheartening. Because I live in an ever-present state of exhaustion, I'm not able to go digging in the far back yard--the only spot with some sun, but where the soil is as hard as a rock and covered in four-foot high weeds--with the exuberance and abandon that would be necessary to bring it to life. [However, since I don't want to use my illness as an excuse, I have to assume that I would be just as much of a lazy-ass if I were well.] So--whether sickness or laziness is to blame--I am saddened and frustrated by my inability--or unwillingness?--to try to achieve some degree of subsistence from urban gardening. ----------------- I do have a container garden on the porch steps that lead down to the cement courtyard, and in the courtyard itself. What I have: 1 baking pan of bell pepper seedlings, which for the moment have nowhere to go (I gave 30 seedlings to my parents, which they planted in their yard); I saved the seeds from peppers bought at the supermarket (so the yield, if there will be any, is uncertain) 2 big plastic inventory boxes (the kind used by large chain stores to temporarily hold surplus merch): -one contains a zucchini plant (no fruit yet, tiny flowers forming) -the other one contains 2 bell pepper plants (no sign of fruit yet) 1 medium black plastic nursery pot: cilantro; (I saved the seeds from last year's cilantro) 1 blue plastic planter: parsley 1 medium mop bucket: basil 4 five-gallon buckets: -two contain snow peas -two contain 2 bell pepper plants each 1 plastic wash tub: 2 bell pepper plants 1 upright, double stainless-steel laundry sink: snow peas I have eaten a lot of snow peas, and having the herbs handy certainly makes for tastier food, but as far as contributing to my own food production, what I grow is certainly much less than 1% of what I consume. It's lovely to have, but it makes not even a small dent on the road to sustainability. Basil, cilantro, parsley, zucchini, bell peppers, snowpeas. [These images are not of my actual plants. I don't have a digital camera.] ::"::"::"::"::"::":: ^^^ July 11, 2003         Listing [Guest - Jessamyn] wow, I thought I was the only one who made obsessive lists about how much everything costs all the darned time. We are lucky here in VT because a lot of our bills for things wind up sending money to co-ops. Here's the breakdown of the things that sustain our life, on a purely mechanical level water; free [gravity fed well on the land in back] power: electric co-op, winds up being $20/mo with 1/2 of that being co-op costs. we went to the annual meeting, it was really fun [plus a free phone card just for showing up!] phone: local telco, NOT a co-op ISP: same folks, they have a parent company in NYC but it's still a small operation long distance: MCI, they are fuckers and yet the cheapest we can find heat: wood mostly, we buy it from the guys down the road [not totally optimal b/c of pollution but out here it doesn't add up, selfish, yet works at our level] appliances: propane mainly for stovetop, oven, furnace if we need it, dryer and hot water. our local company got bought by AmeriGas and we are looking for other providers of fuel car: no way around it here, it's 8 miles to and from the post office, we buy gas from the local mom and pop store but do not fool ourselves food: we belong to the co-op and we go to Shaw's for stuff we need a lot of cheap [less and less as we get better at shopping] clothing: there's a free clothing exchange up the street, drop stuff off and take stuff for free, just free. other things we do: line dry our laundry, manipulate the shades for good solar gain for heating, use a sun shower outside when we can, use rags instead of paper napkins and towels, drink the cheap beer :) things we go without: cable TV, any TV, cell phones, a car with under 140,000 miles on it, new clothes, most prepared foods, recreational drugs things we splurge on: extra line for internet, internet & hosting, dinner out once a week or so, the occasional minor league baseball game, video rentals, travel to see people, stamps, flea market & auction stuff that's it for me right now, I really enjoy reading your blog, it's full of good and sometimes scary info, but it's always thought provoking. jessamyn www.jessamyn.com/journal *+*+*+*+*+*+* ^^^ July 10, 2003         Wealth Distribution in the U.S. [asfo_del] From: http://www.inequality.org/factsfr.html Distribution of Net Worth in the U.S., 1998: Top 1% of population: 38.1% of wealth Next 4%: 21.3% of wealth Next 6%: 11.5% of wealth Next 10%: 12.5% of wealth Next 20%: 11.9% of wealth Next 20%: 4.5% of wealth Next 40%: 0.2% of wealth [There's nothing wrong with your screen. What follows is a graph that displays how lopsided our society is. Scroll down along the blue line (which line represents, by the way, the wealth of the richest 1% of the U.S. population).] Richest 1%, next 4%, next 6%, next 10%, next 20%, next 20%, poorest 40% of U.S. population >><< :: >><< :: >><< ^^^ July 8, 2003         Meanwhile...More Poverty "At Home" [Richard] While we should be aware of the terrible poverty around the world and the extent of poverty that might be less visible to a lot of people in the U.S., let's not forget the fact that there are many people living in dire poverty right here within the boundaries of this socially constructed region we call "our country," and many, many people are, indeed, making their homes out of makeshift materials – especially cardboard boxes. In fact, you can see a whole lot of people sleeping in cardboard boxes throughout New York City. The problem is even more visible in parts of Washington, DC and, possibly, other cities in the U.S. The homeless problem here in New York City has become so visible at times that our wonderful leaders have taken great efforts to sweep people off the streets and destroy their makeshift housing, in order to make it less conspicuous to the tourists. (Examples include the destruction of the tents and shacks in Tompkins Square Park in the late '80s and the elimination of many makeshift underground residences after a minor media blitz occurred in the early '90s surrounding the "Mole People" living in New York City's train tunnels and other underground corridors.) The usual answer in the "developed" world is, of course, to make sure that homeless people are as invisible as possible, to keep people thinking that extreme poverty is only a problem for people in other, less "civilized" nations. Right now in New York City, there are a record 39,000 homeless, at least as officially counted (the figure is probably much higher). Meanwhile, a majority of the children in New York City (52%) live in poverty. The U.S. in general also has a host of other social indicators showing that we are the most economically unequal, brutally Social Darwinist country among all the "developed nations," a situation that some organizations have described as an economic apartheid. In fact, the U.S. ranks worse in many ways than most "developing" nations, many of which have national health care and haven't put a fraction as many of their people in prison. But I generally don't like to frame the problem in terms of nations. The problem here is an international economic system. The problem is economic power that exists all over the world, and a class war being perpetually waged by the rich against the poor. The problem is, mostly, capitalism. The solution, to a large extent, must be class struggle (though "class" can be defined in broad and sundry different ways these days). That is my opinion, maybe not shared in exactly the same way by all of the rest of the collective. But speaking for myself, let me say this: Our "leaders" may say that they are doing things for the good of the people of the U.S., but they are inclined, because of their class interests, to do things only for the ruling class of the people of the U.S. The politicians are inclined to do things for their fellow politicians and millionaires. When we are told that America has won this or that war or has secured an economic or military triumph somewhere in the world, what we are really being told is that the ruling class has won these victories and maybe we will benefit from getting a few extra crumbs tossed to us after they have feasted. Unfortunately, it is clear that the crumbs are becoming more and more scarce. Poverty is growing in the Third World, but there is also a growing Third World right here in the U.S. And we need to address this problem right here in the U.S. as much as in any other nation. We can't continue pursuing "activism" as some charitable practice to benefit all those poor other people in some far away, distant land. We have to understand that the problem is in our own backyards, our single-room apartments, our squats, and our makeshift dwellings. And those of us who are currently poor or economically disadvantaged (regardless of whatever privileges we may have enjoyed – or not – in our upbringing or educations) have to start fighting this struggle for ourselves, individually and collectively. /*#*\*#*/*#*\*#*/*#*\ ^^^ July 7, 2003         What is the Cost of Living? [asfo_del] Over three billion people, or half of the world's population, have to survive on less than $2 a day. Of those, over a billion live on less than $1 a day. There's no question that most of the world's people live in extreme poverty. But you will often hear the argument that one cannot compare a $700 yearly income in a developing nation with incomes here, in the U.S., because, the argument goes, the cost of living is much lower in impoverished countries. Okay, then what exactly is meant by cost of living? I lived in Brazil for a number of years when I was growing up. Brazil is relatively well-off among developing nations. While it's true that some things were cheaper there [in 1988 a draft beer at a restaurant cost $.25; the meal however, was about the same price as it would have been in the U.S.: a plate of rice and seafood at an open-air restaurant was $5], others were not [gas was much more expensive in Brazil; so were electronic devices and anything that was imported], and in any case the difference in prices, even if you counted only the most necessary staples, which were generally cheaper than here, would not mean that surviving on a mere $2 a day is suddenly comfortable. In Brazilian cities there is a huge population of urban squatters and shack-dwellers, who live in shelters pieced together out of scavenged materials, on often polluted or dangerously sloping stretches of urban land. These crowded settlements make up vast neighborhoods, called favelas. I suppose if one lives in an improvised shack on squatted land, then one's housing costs would be close to zero. It's unlikely that one would have to spend money on utilities, either, since there probably would be none, or, if someone had the proper ingenuity, maybe they could tap a light pole for electricity, which would also be free. Is that what is meant by a lower cost of living? If so, anyone can reduce their costs in the same way, even in rich countries: scavenge some used plywood and old tarps and set up in some spot out of the way, maybe along the East River. Sound appealing? Next time somebody blathers about how easy it is to live on $2 if you're in the developing world, challenge them to do the same wherever they live. Would they be willing to accept the same conditions under which hundreds of millions of people live, daily, in most of the world? From: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_worldregn.asp Slum population in urban areas, in millions World--                          1993: 712       2001: 837 Africa--                          1993: 126       2001: 148 Asia and Oceania--            1993: 423       2001: 498 Europe--                        1993: 211       2001: 248 Latin America and Caribbean--     1993: 87       2001: 103 Northern America--            1993: 2       2001: 3 [**][**][**][**][**] ^^^ July 6, 2003         Making Lists [asfo_del] Why do I keep posting these weird lists of items in my home or how much I spend on pretzels and beans, and why do I publish the details of my utility bills? The short answer is that I find them interesting. I am very curious about other people's slice-of-life facts. Another reason is that they are factual. I have a distaste for making statements, especially about myself, that try to put a spin on themselves. It is impossible not to do this, to some extent, and if I were to parse every entry I've made in this journal I would find that every single one is somehow boastful or disingenuous, especially in instances where the writing seems to be self-deprecating. Even making a list involves a certain amount of spin--even if you commit to leaving out nothing, no matter how damning or embarrassing--because you are inevitably making some choices: what it's a list of, when the list is made, etc. [When I listed the items in my pantry I left out the mouse droppings. I think this is justified because they are not actual items, I think they qualify as dirt. Nevertheless, it's an omission that calls into question whether the list is altogether honest.] I am currently making a list of what I watch on TV every day; this is not a flattering subject, since I watch a lot of TV and a lot of crap on TV. But if I find myself turning off or avoiding certain shows because I know I'll have to include them on the list if I actually watch them, that goes against the spirit of making a truthful list. Then there's the issue of what to include: if the TV is on but I'm not watching it, do I include it? When I decided that I wanted to collaborate on a journal that is at least partly about "Living on Less," I realized that spending money is a very touchy issue to write about, especially in a context that might appear to be telling others what to do or criticizing their choices. Making lists that have to do with various aspects of my life, sometimes tabulating my own expenditures, is a way of saying, well, here's some bare-bones information, do what you want with it. This idea is nothing new. The Dadaists and Fluxus artists were dealing with the issue of reflecting the self in a piece of art. Normally, we expect an artist to pour her soul into her art, which is fine if the artwork is meant to be about the artist's soul. But if one wants to tell some other kind of truth, one that is not about the artist but that has something to do with the world of materials, physics, time, space, etc., then how do you remove the artist as intermediary and "spinner"? [Or not remove her, but make her input explicit and distinguishable from other aspects of the work.] Some of the strategies tried out by the Dadaists and Fluxus artists were experiments in creating randomizing systems or equations. You follow the system, and the final result is partly determined by random elements built into the system, elements that the artist does not control and cannot predict. Making lists is a kind of system: you decide to compile a list, either within a particular space or over a particular time. The content of the finished list is determined by the parameters you have established [i.e. "Write down everything you eat every day."]. ---------------------------- These are some web sites that demonstrate the idea of making lists or inventories as a form of creating art. Most of them use photographs rather than words to document the items or events they list. Things that are normally utterly insignificant are brought into sharp focus. And I also love other people's slice-of-life details: --------- From: ellieharrison.com ellieharrison.com/goldcard.htm 23 September 2002 - 22 September 2003 For exactly one year the distance of every journey made on London Transport (tubes, trains and buses) will be recorded. ellieharrison.com/eat22.htm 11 March 2001 - 11 March 2003 Everything eaten for one whole year between Ellie's 22nd and 23rd birthdays was photographed and details recorded in a log. ellieharrison.com/_takeaways.htm For three months Ellie photographed discarded foods whenever she came across them. ----------- More: fluxus.org/FluxusMidwest/doorknobs/ Fluxus Research: Opening and Closing Doors and Drawers c71123.com/daily_photo/index.php The Daily Photo Project nutscape.com/fluxus/influx/shoes4/owen.htm Shoe day: Thursday, 19 March 1998 More links: c71123.com/links.php ---------- Lists: reinyday.com/rachel/daily/diary010.html#plants An inventory of the plants in Rachel's apartment. reinyday.com/rachel/daily/entry/listoflists.html Rachel's List of Lists angelfire.com/zine2/discontent/lis.htm Neurotic List-Making *++*++*++*++* ^^^ July 4, 2003         Breakdown in Computers...and Time [Richard] Apologies if there seems to be an unusually long gap between postings in the Web journal right now. Asfo_del apparently is suffering from a computer malfunction – or maybe it would be more precise to say that her computer is suffering from the malfunction...but for many of us (myself included, certainly) they can feel like one and the same thing. Also, curiously, my computer malfunctioned somewhat yesterday too when I tried to access the journal Web site. It’s a strange coincidence, but it did lead me to wonder whether someone has planted something within the Common Wheel’s journal to bug up every computer trying to access it. Though I know that’s not really possible, technologically speaking (or is it?)... In any event, the other day, all three active members of the Common Wheel Collective were sitting around talking about our computer problems, obviously experiencing TechnoStress. For those who don’t know, TechnoStress, an ailment named by the psychologist Craig Brod, is "a modern disease caused by an inability to cope with the new computer technologies." It is caused by, among other things, "inadequate staff training/skills, inadequate software/hardware, inadequate or lack of computer support" and "user perceptions, attitudes, expectations." I have also been simply exhausted after several days of working on the midnight shifts. I know, I said nighttime hours are best for me, and it’s still true. But I had to stay up even longer each day to get my time sheets in to the various agencies before various deadlines. It took me a long time to get home, much longer than I ever expected or wanted, which left me with very screwed up sleep habits and very little "spare" time. Unfortunately, by contrast, things were going a little too fast in the workplace (again). In one place, where I did page checking, I was criticized because another worker had managed to turn the pages faster than me. Everybody wants lots of speed and production these days, especially at work. (Also, they want a lot of speed in getting to work. This is a particular problem for on-call temps. I’m asked to get to Midtown Manhattan from my place in Staten Island in an hour and a quarter. A lot of companies used to provide cab service, but now only about one out of five do. And this is during the midnight shift, when the trains are slower and the ferry runs only once an hour…) And now, to bring it all together… No one should be surprised to know that the subject of time is not exactly unconnected from the subject of computers. In fact, the two subjects can be quite related. As the environmentalist/sociologist Jeremy Rifkin mentioned in his book Time Wars (which impressed me a lot back when I read it, in the early ‘90s), technology is making a lot of people increasingly impatient, hyperactive, and demanding upon others in terms of time. Actually, that’s probably an oversimplification of Rifkin’s point, which is that computers are creating a frightening revolution in our perception of time. But certainly, they’re not the first machine to do that. Clocks created the first revolution in perceptions of time. This is what Lewis Mumford meant in his famous book Technics and Civilization, when he named the clock (in this case, a 13th Century monestary clock) as the machine with which industrial civilization began. The clock enabled people to see time in a mechanized, chopped up and compartmentalized kind of fashion that was new to civilization compared to the other, prior methods through which people framed their relationship with time. This made a world of difference in the way things got done, including the ways that bosses were able to rule over and control their employees and underlings. A lot of people are now defining computers as the source of a new revolution in time. As Elizabeth Thiel describes in her excellent page on Technology and Time,"The speed at which computers function is mind-boggling. A common way to measure the speed of a computer is in megahertz. MHz is a measurement of millions of times per second the electrical signal repeats, and is used to determine the clock rate of a computer. A good personal computer today runs at a clock rate of 200 MHz, with the electrical signal repeating two hundred million times in one second, or once every five billionths of a second." It’s perfectly natural, therefore, that, as Thiel points out, "The effects of being exposed this level of speed are evident in Craig Brod's studies in his book TechnoStress." However, Thiel and people that she quotes such as Rifkin might give a little too much credit to the computer itself in terms of its power to affect the way all people interact. Thiel even asserts that, "While computer interaction continues to consume more of our time, human interaction will become more and more frustrating and monotonous, and we will begin to lose the ability to communicate with and relate to each other." But this is not necessarily the inevitable product of computer usage. Not every use of the computer makes these kinds of demands or inspires us to approach everything with this kind of speed. For instance, writing, whether for an e-mail list or a Web journal, can often remain as slow, methodical, and laborious a process as it ever was. We may sometimes feel compelled to churn things out faster without as much careful editing, and we know that people will receive our messages much faster, and that our messages will disappear faster than they might if they were in print. But even if we are all writing on computers, nobody’s writing at 200 MHz, and nobody’s about to do that any time soon. I also suppose that, while I find myself becoming more of a Luddite these days (especially as compared to my more workerist stage a couple of years ago), I’m not a real primitivist, because I tend to believe that we can find a way to use a lot of technology without letting it completely use us. Here, I’m inclined to agree with, say, the views of the anarchist George Woodcock in his essay, The Tyranny of the Clock, in that, "The domination of man by the creation of man is even more ridiculous than the domination of man by man." Ideally, "Mechanical time would be relegated to its true function of a means of reference and co-ordination, and men would return again to a balanced view of life no longer dominated by the worship of the clock. Complete liberty implies freedom from the tyranny of abstractions as well as from the rule of men." I also keep in mind that I don’t always have to use time the way my bosses ask me to use time, at least not in my personal life. In my personal life, I don’t get upset if I’m doing something 10 minutes later than I’m supposed to, if I’m not sticking to my own exact schedule. But that kind of exactitude is also specifically a function of power, which is not so specific to any new technology. Mumford gets more to this point in Myth of the Machine when he says, "Speed ... is a function of effective power and in turn becomes one of the chief means of ostentatiously displaying it.... Royal commands, like urgent commands in the Army, must be performed 'on the double'"...which connects to something I said in a previous post, that when the boss is on your case about being five minutes late, this has nothing to do with any possible production lost. When we're under that kind of pressure in the workplace, smashing the machines is only one of many possible ways to address the problem. As we know, a classic response to speedup in the workplace is workers’ slowdown. But using such methods effectively involves organization or collective action, while our options are much more limited as individuals in an atomized workforce (especially among temps). Still, it’s important to be aware of the options for action and keep them in mind, for any appropriate opportunities that might be seized. For those who do feel that the time-keeping technology is at the root of the problem – or at least of the bad psychology that pervades throughout so much of our culture now – there are groups addressing this matter. One interesting group that I just discovered is the Long Now Foundation, an organization focused on promoting "slower, better thinking," which is hoping to influence and inspire a different perception of time through the design and exhibition of a 10,000-year clock. Curiously, one of the major contributors to this project is Brian Eno, who composed a CD of possible bell sounds for the clock. And certainly, Eno, as one of the virtual inventors of soporific ambient techno, knows as well as anyone that technology doesn’t have to be fast. ^#^#^#^#^#^#^# [Continue to June Archive]