Besides which, yee of the long winded posts, please note that I simply will
not read long posts. Most of them take forever to get to the point or bury
the point in rhetoric. If you want me to read your posts, keep them to a
Although ifyou post a full article, I have the choice to read it or not.
Most journalist put their main point up front, which makes it easy for the
reader to determine whether to read the whole article.
best, Don Monkerud
>[modr8r note: Bill, you've got to start trimming your messages. i did it
>this time for you (first & last time, btw), but note that the continuity
>with the rest of the thread has been lost. every single post I've sent
>back to you for trimming and resending you have ignored. please be more
>conscientious about this in the future. (sorry to single out bill, but
>there are others on the list guilty of the same thing and they need to
>hear this as well).]
>Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:10:39 -0700
>From: William Mandel <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Re: Horowitz corporations
>Every point you make is worthy of consideration. The fact is that
>people from all over the world except western Europe, the white
>former components of the British Empire (Canada, Australia, New
>Zealand), and Japan, fight like hell to get into this country,
>plus a significant number from the advanced capitalist countries
>I have listed, while emigration from the U.S. to anywhere else is
>tiny, except where one's Social Security buys a higher living
>standard than it can here (Mexico and Ireland and Poland, for
> So one has to face the reality that the vast majority of
>human beings judge a country by the material living standard it
>offers, despite all the trade-offs. Use the word "consumerist" if
>you wish, but the fact remains.
> Bill Mandel
>Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
>> "Quality of life" is an elusive concept, and since most, if not all of
>> such ratings are corporate driven, they are questionable. What is the
>> criteria used? Whether a home has a television set, and if so, how many?
>> A telephone? A computer? Access to a MacDonald's or a shopping mall?
>> Does a more highly evolved technology translate into a higher quality of
>> life? Does someone with the latest megabyte PC enjoy a higher quality of
>> life than someone who is able to buy a peach in a neighborhood market
>> that actually tastes like it did before it became just another
>> commodity? Does someone with four bathrooms in their home enjoy a better
>> quality of life than the parents who knows their young child can play on
>> the street without the fear of their being kidnapped, molested or
>> murdered by some psychopath. Or that their children can go to school
>> without the fear that they will be gunned down by one of their
>> classmates, or that the killer won't be their own child, who
>> communicates on his own PC with others of a similar mindset, and drives
>> his very own BMW or Chevy to school?
>> Has the quality of our own lives in the US really improved with the
>> technological advances that have taken place in our life time? As I
>> asked once before, does living longer mean living better? Has the
>> medical care provided for the majority of people, both in America and
>> worldwide, shown improvements that corresponds to the development of new
>> profit-making drugs? Do those growing old have less to fear and more to
>> appreciate than did their counterparts three decades ago? Has technology
>> made us a more or less sociable society? Would someone 40 years ago have
>> understood the meaning of "road rage" or "gridlock"? What does it say
>> about the quality of life in a society where tens of thousands of people
>> spend a minimum of 3 hours a day driving to and from work, part of which
>> is to pay for that very transportation?
>> In evaluating "quality of life," these are the kind of questions that
>> need to be considered.
>> Jeff Blankfort
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 19:55:02 CUT