text:
Michael Albert on Participatory Economics
An Interview with Justin Podur
Michael Albert's book, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, has recently been published by Verso Press. He was interviewed by Justin Podur, a writer and activist based in Toronto.
Justin Podur: Before we get into concerns about participatory economics in your new book, can you give a brief summary of the model's logic and features?
Michael Albert: Participatory economics, or parecon for short, is a new economic vision proposed to replace capitalism. Its guiding values are solidarity, diversity, equity, and self management.
Solidarity means the economy should cause people to be mutually concerned about one another's well being rather than trampling one another. Diversity means the economy should engender varied options rather than producing homogeneity. Equity means the economy should accord people income in proportion to the effort they expend and sacrifices they endure in socially useful labor rather than according to property owned, bargaining power, or output. And self management means that workers and consumers should impact production, allocation, and consumption decisions with a degree of influence proportional to the decision's relative impact on them rather than some people having a huge say and others being entirely obedient.
Parecon's key institutions for attaining these ends are participatory workers and consumers councils, decision making methods that apportion influence in proportion to the degree one is affected, a division of labor that ensure comparably empowering circumstances to all workers, remuneration in proportion to the intensity and length of socially valued work, and allocation by cooperative negotiation rather than by authoritarian central instruction or cut throat competition.
Networks of nested workers and consumers councils are familiar throughout history and are simply the vehicle/place for developing and manifesting preferences whether in a work team, division, whole workplace, or industry, or in a household, neighborhood, region, or country. The decision making methods are also generally known — one person one vote majority rule, or three quarters rule, etc., consensus, and diverse voting variants also including varied mechanisms of decision-related information sharing and dispersal, debate, delay and closure, etc, but all this chosen on a case by case basis to apportion influence proportionately to the degree people are impacted.
The division of labor of a participatory economy is a bit more original. Tasks are apportioned so that each actor has a "job complex" comparable to that of all other actors regarding quality of life implications and, even more so, empowerment implications. No one does only work that is overwhelmingly rote and boring, nor does anyone do only work that is overwhelmingly confidence building, skill inducing, and accessing levers of power. Rather, we each have a mix of things we do, of course suited to our capacities and inclinations, some of which are empowering and some of which are not, but the total of which are comparable in their empowerment implications to everyone else's total. A parecon still has managerial tasks, conducting tasks, design tasks, and so on. But it doesn't have people who only manage, conduct, design, and so on. And similarly a parecon has assembly tasks, clean up tasks, service tasks, digging and carrying tasks, and so on, but it doesn't have people who are only assemblers, cleaners, servers, or carriers.
Most people on the left understand why remuneration should not include returns to capital, but parecon also rejects remuneration according to output. Instead, people are paid according to their effort and sacrifice, which is different from output, given that people differ in their abilities, use different tools, etc. Since jobs are balanced, in a parecon if you work longer than I do, other things equal, you will get proportionately more pay. If you work harder or less hard, other things equal, you will get proportionately more or less pay. If you had a more debilitating or more pleasant job, again you would earn proportionately more or less pay.
And finally, as the last defining institutional feature, participatory economic allocation is no longer by competitive markets which distort behavior, establish horribly biased prices, cause unjust remuneration and income distribution, distort investment to serve the accumulation of profit (or surplus) rather than the meeting of human needs, and violate ecology, among other failings, nor by central planning which is authoritarian and contrary to self management, among other failings. Instead, allocation in parecon is accomplished by participatory planning. Workers and consumers councils propose their involvements, and engage in a negotiated process of settling on final inputs and outputs exercising appropriate decision making influence to meet freely developed and expressed preferences.
My new book, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, first argues for the values noted above. Then it critically evaluates current capitalist and also market socialist and centrally planned socialist institutions in light of those values. Then it presents in a far more complete and, I hope, compelling manner the new, participatory economic institutions and also explores their individual and collective properties. And finally, it addresses diverse concerns readers may have about parecon.
JP: At their best, today's movements do not see class oppression and capitalism as the only form or even the primary form of oppression. Instead they oppose sexism, heterosexism, racism, and all forms of hierarchy. Meanwhile, Parecon minimally discusses any of these. Why is that?
MA: Certainly politics, kinship, culture, and other dimensions of life are critical, not just economics. But suppose you were describing desirable new political institutions (a new kind of legislature or court system, say), or desirable new socialization and living unit institutions (perhaps new ways of parenting, say), or desirable new cultural forms (ways of communities relating, say). You would focus on the intrinsic logic of your focused realm, but not on all other realms at the same time. You would talk a lot about families and up-bringing, etc., but not much about prices or exchange of resources. But your talking primarily about parenting, or religious ritual and community identity, or adjudication wouldn't mean that you thought that prices or workplaces were unimportant, of course, and in the same sense my focusing on economics when I am trying to present an economic vision doesn't imply that I think race or gender or other factors are unimportant, especially when the contrary is continually indicated in this book and in all my writing.
An economic vision should respect norms arising from liberatory gender, sex, race, and other relations. And I think parecon is capable of that, and the book addresses that. So while I agree that it is very important to battle the tendency to exaggerate the importance of economics and to pay attention to other factors including both conceptual and organizational approaches to multi-issue activism, I think that even with that multi-focus priority, sometimes it makes sense to centrally address one part of society and give less attention to other parts. Talking explicitly about economic vision seems to me to be one such time, just as talking explicitly about political, cultural, or kinship vision would also entail highlighting a part of the whole society.
JP: But what does participatory economics say about household labor, for example, or about women doing gender-defined work on the job? Or what does it say about abortion?
MA: Parecon says nearly nothing about abortion. Or about child rearing, or about making love, or about a million other things. And the little that it does say about extra-economic phenomena is very general.
Thus, if there is a parecon in a society, then whatever else there is in that society beyond its economy will need to be at least compatible with what the participatory economy asks from people. This is what a good polity would also say about other dynamics in society apart from political ones, or what a good cultural sphere would say about other dynamics beyond cultural ones. That is, if one proposes a vision for some part of society — such as I do for the economy — then it says that the rest of society should be compatible. The book is explicit about this.
If we call bringing up kids or washing dishes from dinner work, and we live in a parecon, then bringing up kids or washing dishes become part of the process of balancing job complexes, and is remunerated and decided in the parecon way, like everything else in the economy. In that case, parecon would say about bringing up kids just exactly the same kind of things that it says about producing bicycles or doing surgery or digging coal. It must occur in balanced job complexes. It must get its inputs from the social planning process, as inputs to production. It must be remunerated according to effort and sacrifice. Some people — , such as the wages for housework movements that have existed at various times — favor that way of looking at household activity, including child-rearing. And if a society wished to treat these activities that way, a parecon would have no trouble accommodating that choice.
But suppose we say, instead, as some people including myself would prefer, that child rearing and house-keeping isn't work in the same sense as bicycle manufacture, surgery, and coal mining are. Suppose we decide that there is something far more subtle and profound involved — first because the primary beneficiary of the activity is the practitioner of the activity rather than distant consumers, and second because there is something profoundly different about bicycles as a product than about children or even a clean or well designed living room as a product? In that case, participatory economics wouldn't say so much about these activities — other than that the people emerging from families and from social life more generally will also work and consume in the economy, and will therefore need to be suited to doing that. Does that imply that there is nothing to be said about the activities, about the need for equity in them, etc.? Of course not. It just implies, instead, that what needs to be said about raising children and caring for a home is far more the purview of a kinship vision than it is of an economic vision. For the economy to be deciding attributes of child rearing and household life based on how the economy thinks bicycles ought to be made, seems out of place, to me.
On the other hand, the statement that the family and socialization must be compatible with a parecon, is appropriate, I think, and is quite analogous to what a parecon says for the school system and other features, as well. A society that has a parecon can't sensibly have a school system that produces graduates who are unable or disinclined to participate in decision making in balanced job complexes, nor can it sensibly produce graduates who expect to dominate others or to be dominated by others in a class hierarchy, because a parecon has no place for these relations.
Similarly, a society can't sensibly have family life that produces people who expect there to be relations of hierarchy between men and women regarding influence over economic outcomes or regarding income from economic activity in a society that has a parecon, because a parecon doesn't permit that kind of inequality and hierarchy. In a parecon neither workplaces nor consumption can reduce the influence of women vÃs-a-vÃs men, or reduce the relative income of women vÃs-a-vÃs men, or relegate women to worse conditions vÃs-a-vÃs men, because no such systematic hierarchies of power, income, or conditions can exist in a parecon, period.
But couldn't women get a raw deal if they are equal in the economy but have to do everything, or nearly everything, in family and social life? Yes, they of course could, so presumably a kinship transformation would rule out such a backward residue.
So I think the answer is that parecon is very much in accord with eliminating sexual or gender hierarchies and also accords well with feminist innovations more generally, but it also doesn't overstep its bounds to say more than it ought to about other parts of life as if economics was the place to define and decide such relations in their positive and full character.
JP: What about culture? What happens if there is racism in the work place? Parecon doesn't seem to talk about that. Does it deny the importance? And what does participatory economics say about religion, or about developing cultural communities around national citizenship, or ethnic factors?
MA: If we had a parecon in a society that had racist cultural structures, the racist structures would cause one community — let's say whites in the U.S. — to expect to have dominating conditions and income, and another community or communities — let's say blacks and Latinos in the U.S. — to have subordinate conditions and income. But the parecon economy would not gratify these expectations born in the racist culture. It would violate them.
White workers in a parecon could have racist attitudes toward black workers, say. But they couldn't have systematically higher income, or better jobs, or more power. No one can have such advantages in parecon for any reason, because everyone in a parecon has a balanced job complex, everyone is justly remunerated for effort, and everyone has proportionate say in production, consumption, and allocation decisions.
In other words, by virtue of its balanced job complexes and self management and its equitable remuneration, parecon eliminates racial and all other hierarchies of power and income in economic life. There just aren't any such hierarchies because the institutions literally preclude their being any such hierarchies. There could still be racist attitudes, yes, and there could even be some people who desired to violate parecon's built-in features — and so of course the model should have means for repressed or minority communities to especially express and represent their interests, and parecon has that, as described in the model and the book.
What does parecon say about religion? It says almost nothing. Religion is not at its core an economic phenomenon, just as sexuality isn't.
Parecon does say, however, that in a society where there is a parecon, a religion that causes its adherents to expect to enjoy greater economic conditions relative to people of other religions is going to be at odds with the economy, and something will have to give. This is like the example above of the school system having to be in accord, or the example of home life having to be in accord. And of course the reverse holds true as well.
That is, suppose we — as I think we ought to — develop a powerful and compelling and worthy vision for cultural relations in a good society, and for gender relations, and others. Then these will have features and attributes that we celebrate and desire to enjoy, and these attributes will have wider implications. The economy in a society where these visions are in place would have to comply with various requirements the visions impose. Will a parecon be able to do that? I think so, and the book discusses such issues – though of course one can't be sure until these other visions are developed.
I believe, in other words, that when feminist movements put forth a vision for kinship relations and when anti-racist and other cultural and community related movements put forth a vision for culture, and when anarchists and others attending to matters of political activity in society put forth a political vision, it will turn out that parecon is consistent with and even supportive of each of these visions. And I think that is the right standard by which to judge an economic vision vÃs-a-vÃs other spheres of social life.
So just to be absolutely clear on this, if I said, or the parecon book said, here is participatory economics, this is a vision for society, that would be implicitly claiming that the only thing that matters is economics — so that an economic vision addresses everything important about all sides of life. But I don't say that, nor does the book. Instead I and the book claim exactly the opposite — that we need vision for other parts of life, just as we need it for the economy, and no less importantly, and that an economic vision has to be compatible with those other visions, just as the reverse will also have to hold. That doesn't elevate economics nor denigrate anything else.
Finally, regarding culture vision, there are some efforts to try to elaborate cultural vision that would be compatible with parecon and would be comparably liberated, such as for example your own essay, Life After Racism, on ZNet.
JP: But what about the state? What happens if there is stealing or violence or other violations? And how does society decide that some things the economy might otherwise do shouldn't be done – such as violating the rights of animals?
MA: Parecon no more ignores the state than it ignores the family, or socialization, or schooling, or cultural celebration, or religion, among other dynamics. The participatory economic vision and the parecon book say about the state that we need new institutions that can accomplish legislation, adjudication, and implementation in ways that support the values we hold dear. It says that such a state will have to be compatible with parecon, and that parecon will have to be compatible with such a state.
There is no such thing as an economy alone. A real-world parecon will never exist without an accompanying polity, to be sure, or without an accompanying culture and kinship system, and so on. But that doesn't mean that thinking about the economy itself requires or even calls for us to overreach economic limits by indicating what the character of the polity (or kinship, or culture) must be. To do that is not the place of an economic vision.
How would external constraints be placed on the economy? Your example is a good one. A good polity might decide that there are rules that must be abided vÃs-a-vÃs a particular species, or perhaps even all animals — and then the economy would have to comply, just like the economy would have to comply if the polity says no one can own a hand gun, as another example.
Finally, interestingly, there are efforts now under way to try to conceive a way of doing political functions compatibly with parecon. See, for example, Stephen Shalom's essay on parpolity in the Life After Capitalism section of ZNet.
JP: Regarding the economy itself, aren't your workers and consumers councils and remuneration for effort and sacrifice and balanced job complexes and self management and participatory planning just "socialism from below"? What is the point of inventing a fancy name for something that every Marxist understands? Why are you taking credit for something that you didn't invent? Haven't you just taken old-style Marxism and repackaged it, and changed the name to try to fool people who are unfamiliar with it?
MA: If by the word socialism you mean workers and consumers controlling economic life without class divisions diminishing people's options, then, yes, you could reasonably say that parecon is that kind of socialism, whereas what has gone under the name socialism in the past isn't. I used to do that, years back, but I have come to think it is like blowing into the wind, and perhaps not only futile but even counter productive, because I think it can impede developing really new vision, much less communicating it, as if saying one is a socialist conveys some positive vision already.
Millions upon millions of people have called public or state ownership taken together with markets or central planning and corporate divisions of labor and remuneration for power or output, socialism. Every Marxist text that presents a serious economic model labelled socialism has those institutions at its core. Every Marxist party that has gotten into a position to establish an economic system has incorporated those features in its aims. Every such party while in opposition has utilized structures and put forth analysis that is anti-capitalist, but that is also consistent with arriving at those structures rather than at the ones proposed in parecon.
So which communicates more accurately and clearly: To call the new economic vision participatory economics and accept that what has gone under the label socialism is socialism and reject it? Or to call this new economic vision socialism and to deny that anything that has in the past called itself socialism was, in fact, socialism, contrary to the beliefs of all its adherents?
But the real point, in order to address the rest of your question, is that parecon is not a Marxist goal. It rejects the institutions that Marxism has consistently supported and offers quite different institutions in their place. What's more, parecon rejects class rule by people who monopolize empowering conditions in their work, and this parecon priority is completely absent from Marxism as it has overwhelmingly existed in real history.
So, parecon has different guiding values, different institutions, and different features and implications than what has gone under the label socialism and than what has been overwhelmingly propounded by Marxists. If it doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't talk like a duck, and doesn't swim like a duck, what is the point of calling it a duck?
Regarding originality, it is quite true that workers and consumers councils have been a part of every major upsurge in modern history. Parecon is consistent with that heritage, and is not original in that respect but part of a historical process. But Marxist Bolshevism actually destroyed such institutions, and at other times such institutions have internally dissolved for want of consistent and effective structures due to being stuck, instead, with Marxist options.
Similarly, public and or state ownership is part of socialist and Marxist practice and history and certainly bears considerable resemblance to parecon's elimination or private ownership of productive property. That much is correct.
On the other hand, socialist and Marxist practice has consistently been about remuneration for power or output, whereas parecon is about remuneration for effort and sacrifice. And socialist and Marxist practice has consistently embodied a corporate-style division of labor elevating about twenty percent of the workforce to decision making dominance over the rest, whereas parecon incorporates balanced job complexes and removes this form of class domination. And socialist and Marxist practice has utilized markets and or central planning, whereas parecon rejects both these modes of allocation and incorporates in their place participatory planning.
So the council emphasis is old but renovated a bit. The remuneration scheme has certainly surfaced at various times in the past, but has never been so fully explored, and likewise for the actual meaning of self management. The balanced job complexes and participatory planning are largely original, though very much an outgrowth of aspirations and practices that have recurred through history. Putting it all together into a whole economic model and showing its properties is certainly new, at least as far as I am aware.
JP: All over the world, there are real movements trying, in very difficult conditions, to develop alternatives to capitalism. Think of the assemblies and recovered factories in Argentina; the "planes de vida" in Cauca, Colombia; the advances made by socially progressive governments in places like Cuba, Venezuela, Kerala, and West Bengal. There are the Mondragon enterprises in the Basque country in Spain. There is a whole network of "economia solidaria" enterprises all over the world. And yet, Parecon is hopelessly abstract. There is very little reference to any specific experiences. It is as though no effort was made to learn from developments in the same field. Does the theory of Parecon come from anywhere? Does it come from any experience? Does it come from the study of anything specific? Or is it just an economist's invention?
MA: Actually there is some reference to pretty much all of what you mention in the new book, but you are correct that there is not very much. The book doesn't do case studies of all those experiences, or even of any of them. But that doesn't mean it floats in space. Parecon emerges from an examination of the history of various revolutions and struggles as well as from more recent practical experiences, and from the study of economic thought, as well. In fact, a decade of personal experience with a pareconish institution in the midst of market capitalism informed the vision, as well.
But despite the fact that I could therefore dismiss the question by agreeing with its agenda and simply saying the agenda has been followed for parecon, I want to answer somewhat differently. Suppose it was the case that someone who was shipwrecked off on an island somewhere — rather than folks with diverse activist experiences who were also well read in other people's views and in movement histories and had explored and worked on them for decades, and so on — had sat and contemplated, day after day, all alone, and had through simple imagination even though utterly divorced from any real world reports, produced an economic vision. They knew nothing about and took no lessons from working class movements, from consumer campaigns, from the entire legacy of economic theory, from the history of capitalism and of post capitalist economics, from the writings and studies of others, and so on (all quite unlike the authors of the parecon vision, myself and Robin Hahnel). They just thought. Now I don't think this is remotely likely, perhaps it is not even possible, but let's suppose, nonetheless, that it did happen.
What would our reaction be?
Mine would be that if I heard about this I would doubt its likely value, but I would read the vision, and if I liked it, great. I would be amazed that it was good, but so what? If it's a good vision, I like it, regardless of where it came from.
On the other hand, suppose someone has been utterly immersed in endless case studies of all kinds of projects and systems and historical experiences, and they then produced an economic vision — a set of proposed institutions. I may well anticipate that it will be very interesting and good. But if I read it, and it's a bad vision, I don't like it.
My point is that when judging a vision it doesn't matter what research, study, and activity it emerged from, who in particular authored it, and what language it is written in (though if it is meant to be shared widely it better be accessible). What matters is the institutions that are proposed and in particular their properties, feasibility, and worthiness. We may doubt the likelihood that a vision proposed without much contact with real economic systems and history and without much training in economics and without much related personal experience would be very good — but still, the proof would be in the pudding.
In fact parecon does emerge from the history of libertarian radical thought, from the history of radical political economy, from the experiences of anti capitalist movements and revolutions, from the new left, and from various contemporary related economic experiments as well — but, if in fact parecon had emerged from a couple of people chatting and stumbling on it, or if it had emerged whole cloth in a dream — it wouldn't matter. The vision is what it is…and it ought to be judged on the basis of the properties of the institutions it proposes.
I make this point because while I imagine that political, cultural, and kinship/social visions for movements will most likely derive from study of past experiences and experiments, familiarity with the relevant history of thought, and experience with experiments, like this economic vision did, if they happen to arrive instead whole cloth from somewhere, I sure wouldn't want to miss out on the benefits due to ruling them out a priori.
JP: What difference does parecon make? What does any of this have to do with all of the urgent things we have to do now? Describing some detailed futuristic paradise seems far less valuable than having plans of action for right now. What kinds of programs have a chance of succeeding now? Health care, housing, living wages, reparations — working out the economics of these campaigns, figuring out whom to pressure and how and what it would take to bring these kinds of things about, is far more important than describing a utopian society.
MA: I think there are two main reasons why developing an economic vision (and other vision as well) has tremendous bearing on what we do in the present.
The first reason has to do with motivation, or hope. It is my impression that a major obstacle to many people becoming involved in movements is the belief that "there is no alternative" to what we now endure. This doesn't mean that such people think there is no alternative to bombing Iraq, or no alternative to passing the Patriot Act, or even no alternative to having the IMF. It is more subtle. They feel, often just intuitively but sometimes very explicitly, that there is no alternative to the underlying defining institutions of society. And they also feel, not least due to the movement's saying so for decades, that those underlying institutions produce injustice of all kinds, from poverty to war and from indignity to powerlessness. So they feel that while maybe some reforms can be won, in time the gain will be lost as the weight of underlying pressures undoes the positive steps. They feel that organizing against poverty and war, much less against inequality and alienation, is like organizing against gravity or against old age — they are the pursuits of the naïve. Fighting poverty can at best accomplish little, and in any event what is accomplished will be rolled back. So why participate? Why allot any of what little spare time one has to movement activism? Why risk one's so-difficult-to-attain equanimity, in order to demonstrate, to protest, to organize?
So the first way that vision relates to current organizing is to help refute the idea that there is no alternative to capitalism and in doing so to help counter hopelessness.
The second way that vision relates to what we do in the present is by informing our practice. Yes, we need to fight for health care, living wages, a shorter work day and work week, more control on the job, income redistribution, budgetary changes, new investment patterns, and many other economic changes — not to mention changes in other domains of life. But how do we struggle for them? What rhetoric and analyses do we use? What organizational structures do we use? The answer, I think, depends very much not only on what our options are in the present (we certainly do have to choose from among what is possible now), and not only on what we oppose, of course — but also on where we want to wind up in the future. That is, while we have to choose among options that are possible now, and which oppose the ills we reject, we also have to choose options that accord with our ultimate aims and values and will help us reach them rather than becoming obstacles to doing so. And to know what fulfills these criteria, we need to know what our future ultimate aims and values are.
I think parecon contributes much that is relevant to today. It contributes hope. But it also contributes, for example, an innovative understanding of class relations and of the implications of organizational structures for people's consciousness and motivations inside our movements. Parecon is profoundly anti-Leninist, for example, and that bears directly on what we do in the present. The understanding that comes from having a participatory economic vision can and should instruct how we build our institutions, what kinds of job structures we incorporate in our own projects and organizations, what kinds of decision making we utilize, as well as what demands we make and how we talk about them so as to develop truly positive consciousness about making lasting change. Parecon leads toward constructing and employing balanced job complexes, toward emphasizing self management, toward attaining just remuneration, toward relating to the differences between coordinator and working classes, both in our movements and concerning our demands on existing institutions.
But none of this is an argument for presenting what I suspect you are referring to when you say "detailed futuristic paradises" or otherwise "utopian" formulations. This is an argument, instead, for sober and comprehensible descriptions of what we broadly seek in new defining institutions, plus elaboration of the implications of having those goals for our future prospects as well as for the choices we make in the present.
JP: Parecon offers answers to the problems created by markets, private property, and hierarchical work organization. But there are other problems with capitalism. What about the global division of power and wealth? What about the division between the rich and poor countries, in which the rich countries plunder the poor ones? The on-going colonization of indigenous lands in the Americas? The on-going exploitation of immigrant labor and control of immigrants by borders? The capitalist economic relations that Parecon rejects were founded on these divisions. And yet Parecon has no analysis or answers for these problems: no talk of nation states, no talk of borders, no talk of the global distribution of wealth, the distribution of wealth between communities or nations. These go to the heart of capitalism, and "life after capitalism." Why is there no discussion of them?
MA: Well, actually I don't think these matters do go to the heart of capitalism per se, so much as they reflect the impact of capitalism on international relations. Capitalism is a particular set of economic institutions for handling economic functions in a society. Parecon is an alternative set of institutions for handling economic functions.
If you have one parecon in the world, and lots of capitalisms, you will of course have many problems of the sort you indicate. The book talks about what to do then, and it isn't very different conceptually than now. People of good will[?] living in the country with a participatory economy, or in any other country, will presumably work hard to reduce and impede the horrible ills that you note. The society with a parecon of course does not partake of exploiting those ills but instead interacts according to pareconish valuations and in ways aimed at reducing disparities between rich and poor.
If instead, you have only parecons in the world, the ills you mention are overwhelmingly gone, though you still need various international agencies and organizations, no doubt…a matter that goes beyond an economic model.
Mainly, there is nothing in parecon, I believe, which drives a society to try to exploit others. And of course the minute the world economy incorporates pareconish norms, even the possibility of such disparities would disappear. What parecon thus says about the ills that you describe is what you would anticipate — the ultimate economic goal is solidarity, diversity, equity, and self management domestically and internationally. Short of that, one fights to get closer to these goals.
The book is about economic systems for countries, however, not about relations among countries, so it addresses the latter only briefly. It is not because such matters are unimportant. It is also true that the book doesn't address eliminating nation states. I myself doubt such an end is very important, or even desirable, and I am not sure it has any realistic meaning, in any event. I think eliminating nation states would be homogenist and reduce diversity — are we doing to have one language, one culture — unless all that one means by it is that just like there are counties inside a country, there should also be nations in the world, but the world should be more of a whole than it is now. That is in no way incompatible with parecon, of course, and indeed quite consistent with it.
JP: It is clear that if an "economic vision" fails to consider that natural resources are finite, that the use of fossil fuels leads to climate change, that organizing society around automobiles is disastrous, then it is avoiding one of the most urgent problems the economy faces. Parecon deals with ecological issues in a cursory way, saying: "in parecon prices represent full social and ecological costs." Is it really so automatic? Isn't it possible that a parecon could still use many ecologically inappropriate technologies, or be saddled with an infrastructure that led to those kinds of choices? You dismiss "bioregionalist," "deep ecology," and "small-is-beautiful" type ideas as anti-ecological, but you seem to think that a parecon automatically takes care of nature. Is that really the case?
MA: Humans live in context of and influencing and being influenced by their natural environment. We and rivers and the atmosphere and all the rest are all entwined together, one entity at an ecological level — and the same holds for other species, who are also part of that whole, of course.
An economy is about production, consumption, and allocation undertaken in response to human desires.
For capitalism this means the economy is about profits for owners and elite status for coordinators. Those two classes dominate capitalist decision making and additionally capitalist economic institutions make those the economy's driving motives.
For a parecon this means the economy is about meeting human needs and developing human potentials in accord with advancing solidarity, diversity, equity, and self management. All actors have proportionate say and economic institutions make those aspirations the economy's driving motives.
Any economy, capitalist, participatory economic, or otherwise, impacts the ecology by affecting the context that all species, resources, the built world, and ourselves "inhabit," including using resources up or preserving them, etc.
The job of an economy, vÃs-a-vÃs ecology, is to provide the populace with as accurate information about the implications of possible economic choices for ecological conditions as knowledge and means allow. The populace then must make decisions with proportionate say for all.
Capitalism does not arrive at or deliver the needed information, and it skews motives so that, in any event, ecological outcomes are obscured, ignored, and dismissed whenever attending to them would interfere with profit.
Parecon, in contrast, does arrive at and deliver the best possible estimates of true social (including ecological) costs and benefits — at least it does so insofar as we are talking about impact on humans, and it also facilitates determinations in light of this information. Do we want more fulfillment and development for humans enough to warrant using up some part of the remaining available non renewable resources or enough to eliminate some natural growth? People must decide, with appropriate input, and with the best possible information — but the economy should not judge such matters a priori. Parecon follows this instruction.
But what about other animals? That is an extra-economic matter. In the polity, people may decide, for example, that a particular breed of butterfly is sacrosanct and simply can't be inconvenienced much less hurt by human choices. Then that instruction would be imposed on the economy's functions. The participatory economy could not arrive at such an instruction internally but the parecon could easily accommodate any such constraints arrived at in the political sphere due to the efforts, for example, of advocates of animal rights.
What about the insights that small is beautiful or those that fuel bioregionalism? These insights come in two forms. The first says small production methods often have important advantages and we should be aware of this fact and choose such methods when it makes sense to do so. Likewise, it says that local self-reliance often has important advantages and we should be aware of this too and choose self-reliance when it makes sense. This is not only correct, and not only congenial to parecon, but parecon provides the means to carry these instructions out — unlike market economic systems, which would make such assessments impossible and would be biased against both small and local for diverse reasons, as well.
In other words, this version of these insights says that in determining the scale of operations, or the range of provision (local or wider) we should be attuned to the full social costs and benefits including by way of impacting the ecology. Parecon does all this.
Another version of these insights says that we know, a priori, that small is always better and that local is always better. This version of the insights is, I think, horribly wrong. In fact we don't know that small and local are always better.
This version moves from the very sensible admonition to be aware of a probability of benefits from small and local, to saying it is always a fact that small and local will be optimal. Acting on this version of the insights, a person would presumably say that instead of a relatively few workplaces producing airplanes for a whole country, we should instead have an airplane production plant in every bioregion – or let's say, since what the definition of a bioregion is never really clear, in every county. This would be ecologically horrendous, and would be horrible regarding the utilization of human energies as well. And — before anyone says, okay, but airplanes are an exception — the same is probably true for bicycle shops. Should we only have two or three person bicycle building shops putting together relatively few products, or do economies of scale actually make it more advisable to have larger ones?
And the same goes for self-reliance. The advocate of the strong version of the insights would presumably say that people in a desert bioregion should only eat what they can grow locally, people in a bioregion that has no coal, oil, iron, and so on, should just do without, and people who happen to live in a bioregion that enjoys vast ranges of natural assets, should prosper greatly compared to all others. But, put this way, obviously this makes no sense. And the minute we permit what is produced over there to be consumed over here, we are saying that issues of local sufficiency are a matter of case by case judgment.
A good economy needs to decide the scale of operations and the range of provision and the desirability or not of receiving inputs from a distance, case by case, not a priori. To say that regions should be self-sufficient says that most of the world should have no oil at all, no steel, no coal, no tin, no tungsten, no oranges, etc. It says each place cannot enjoy the diversity of the whole, or any product that requires inputs from beyond their region. Why say this in cases where to enjoy additional diversity increases fulfillment more than it costs in transport?
Honestly, I don't think these are very complex matters. We cannot say that large is beautiful nor that small is beautiful. We cannot say that self-sufficiency is beautiful nor that sharing everything for all is beautiful. What we can say is that choosing a scale and choosing levels of mutual availability so as to meet people's needs and develop people's potentials while propelling values people hold dear all while taking into account full and true social and ecological costs and benefits as well as abiding by socially agreed constraints is beautiful. And that's what a parecon facilitates.
JP: When it comes to questions like ecology or other specifics, you sometimes argue that it is pointless to get overly specific. Social change is a process of trial and error, and the true test of ideas is in their application. So it is only possible and desirable to sketch the broad outlines of the vision — councils, participatory planning, balanced job complexes, etc. But Parecon is a 300 page book, and it gets into some very specific answers to criticisms. How does one decide that this level of specificity is right — that 300 pages is just right, 10 pages is too little, 600 pages is too much. What you have described is already far too specific for many readers, but not specific enough for many others. It seems arbitrary.
MA: I don't think it is arbitrary, though of course reasonable people can disagree about just how much description makes sense. Suppose someone were describing capitalism. Of course they could pick a country — say the U.S., or say Thailand, or whatever — and they could describe at any length…up to tens of thousands of pages. But suppose the idea isn't to convey the full characteristics of each specific instance of capitalism, but rather the broad characteristics of capitalism itself. The aim is to describe the key and defining features that all instances of capitalism have in common, not the unique characteristics or optional characteristics of any of them. The aim is to describe the part that makes them capitalist, not the specific additional details that may be unique from one case to the next. If there are 50,000 pages on the U.S. in detail, and the same on Thailand in detail, and on South Africa in detail, and on Japan in detail, and so on — the part that is relevant to the query about capitalism per se is the part that overlaps, which is much less than 50,000 pages.
We don't have lots of parecons to examine, but we certainly know that if we did there would be a tremendous amount of detail in each, and much that would be unique in each. Similarly, even inside a parecon — just like inside a capitalist economy — there would be great variation from institution to institution, and even for institutions of a single type, such as assembly plants, much would be optional, so to speak, varying from case to case.
So the task is to describe the key defining features. It is to describe the institutions which emanate influences that determine the broad and central attributes of the economy.
Another reason for this particular limiting of what we do, beyond that it is what describing a type entails, is that when talking about a future vision, to go further most likely takes us beyond the realms where we can be reasonably confident, and does so to no useful gain. What we need in the way of an economic vision is the broad strokes, the defining features, the attributes that can give hope, inspire us, and provide context and direction regarding how we organize and what we demand in the present, and how we develop structures from which we learn about and which become part of the future. I think that discussing workplace organization and division of labor, remuneration, decision making, and allocation at the broadest level, with sufficient attention to individuals and their interrelations to make a case for desirability and for viability, does what is needed. Sometimes it may make sense to go a bit further into hypothetical details to provide texture so as to facilitate understanding. But when we do that, we ought to be clear that it is possibilities we are offering, rather than specifications, so to speak.
Parecon is a particular economic vision. An economy that doesn't have workers and consumers councils using self-management methods for decision making, balanced job complexes, remuneration for effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning, is not a parecon. If one of these defining features is flawed, we will have to reconceive. But beyond these broad features there is tremendous room for diversity and for variation. We can talk about some of what that might look like, to provide texture and descriptive clarification, but we ought not confuse it with key attributes.
So, when I try to present the key features, including some preparatory material and some clarification of objections, it comes to about 300 pages. Others might wind up longer or shorter — either due to including more or less, or having a more succinct or effusive style. But this is all talking about a candidate vision, so to speak. An economic vision becomes a real vision, not just proposed, in my view, when it is widely shared and utilized. That certainly doesn't hold for participatory economics, as yet. And if and when it does hold, then we will know what the shared vision constitutes.
JP: Participatory economics has been around for over a decade now — if you are right in your claims that vision is critically important to activist advance and that parecon provides a viable and worthy vision, why hasn't the reception been better so far? And what do you expect to come of parecon now? Do you believe that if enough people read a book about balanced jobs, participatory planning, and worker and neighborhood councils, that something will change? Do you think that social change works that way? Has it ever worked this way?
MA: This is a hard question, particularly for me. Why isn't parecon, or something like it, by now widely adopted by anti-capitalists throughout the world? Well, the answer for parecon itself is certainly in part that virtually no activists around the world have heard of it, much less know enough about its properties to have an opinion of it. It isn't rejected or ignored by anti-capitalists worldwide for the decade you mention; it is just unknown to them.
But that raises a prior question. Why for a decade has it been so difficult to get knowledge of this model out and about to people who might reasonably advocate it, or, if not, refine or revamp it and then advocate whatever emerges from that process?
It could be that it just plain takes time to get new ideas visible. It could be that new ideas need to have more appeal with initial audiences, however small, to reach larger audiences later, and that parecon didn't have that needed appeal, at least so far. It could be that there are difficult obstacles to hurdle to reach wider audiences, such as the antipathy of many people who are publishers or even movement leaders to certain aspects of parecon, leading them to like it less than would a broader audience, and leading them to not make it visible to that broader audience.
As to what will come of this vision now, we will have to see. There are some very promising signs, however. The new book has been available since May. There are about a dozen foreign rights deals closed or nearly closed, and quite a few more in early stages of exploration. This is the first wide international visibility the model will have. Reviews seem to be happening at a faster rate than for past books on parecon. Interest in the form of early buying is hugely greater than for any past book on the topic, with the first and second hardback print runs selling out before they even reached stores. So I think there is evidence that there is interest in anti-capitalist economic vision. If people become aware that there is a book which tries to provide it, many will read it. What will happen then, we will have to see.
As to the latter half of your question, reading, talking, thinking, acting — all of these are part of what affects peoples viewpoints and allegiances. Does anyone think otherwise?
Do I think a book can have a very significant impact? Of course I think that can happen. Many books have had important impact, so this question seems resolved by evidence. But it also true that any book that does have a significant political impact will do so in accompaniment to discussions, debates, and in the case of a vision, also organizing and organization. So the question is open whether participatory economics will be judged widely, and whether it will, if it is judged widely, pass the test as a worthy vision, and whether, if it passes the test as a worthy vision, movements will find it worth advocating and utilizing in their outreach and struggle.
Since I think vision is very important, I hope all the answers to these questions will be yes. If they aren't, then I hope something else will fill the void that now exists regarding shared economic vision. I am pretty sure that that void needs filling.


text:
By BRAD KELLAR
Herald-Banner Staff
The Greenville Independent School District board of trustees intends to discuss, and possibly take action, this week concerning the future of the former Travis Elementary School.
After being unable to find a buyer for the property at 3005 Division Street, the board is scheduled to meet in executive session to consider its options as part of Tuesday's regular board agenda, starting at 6 p.m. in the Wesley Martin Operations Center, 4004 Moulton Street in Greenville.
The district had sought sealed bids on the site in April, with a minimum bid of $70,000, but did not receive a single offer.
Tuesday, the board is set to meet in closed session under Section 551.072 of the Local Government Code, which allows for "a governmental body to conduct a closed meeting to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property if deliberation in an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the position of the governmental body in negotiations with a third person."
Should the board take any action concerning the property, it would return to open session to do so.
Travis Elementary School was consolidated with the Greenville Sixth Grade Center at the start of the 2010/2011 school year, after the elementary school building developed structural problems due to its age.
District officials say there are no immediate plans to build another elementary, as the situation with the two schools sharing the one campus at 3201 Stanford Street is working well.
Superintendent Don Jefferies has said if the district does need to build an elementary school in the future, there is land available near the Hunt Regional Medical Center.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Regarding "Bengals success hasn't sold seats" (Dec.7):
I bought my first season ticket to the Bengals in 1975. I witnessed "The Legend" coach, I was at the freezer bowl, and I was also in Pontiac and Miami. This year I gave up my season tickets. I didn't quit because of the bad economy. I didn't quit because of last year's losing season. I didn't quit because of the coaching staff or the team on the field. I quit because I'm tired of the Cincinnati community being held hostage by Mike Brown.
Mike Brown does not give back to this community. We read about the score board, the field turf, and stadium maintenance issues. We read about the lease from hell, a gift to us by Bob Bedinghaus, who now works for Mike Brown. In real life this lease would have ended with a plea bargain to avoid jail time.
He has a take on the concessions, a take on the parking, along with a take on other stadium activities. Mr. Castellini has the Red's Community Fund. Mr. Brown has the Mike Brown's Take from the Community Fund (no offense to the team and coaching staff who do contribute to our fine community).
The article quoted lost revenue to Channel 12. The article did not quote the lost revenues to the rest of the business community who rely on home games. The article also stated in the first 13 weeks of the season there have been 11 blackouts out of 192 games. Five of the blackouts were at Paul Brown Stadium, just another slap in the face to the proud Cincinnati community.
I love the Bengals and it hurts me to not be in the stadium on game day. I can't be the only season ticket holder who feels this way. Mike Brown has a store; I have elected not to shop in it.
Martin Naseef
Green Township
Posted in: football, Greater Cincinnati, National, Northern Kentucky, Ohio, Sports
Tags: Cincinnati Bengals, Hamilton County, Mike Brown, Stadium debt


text:
LOS ANGELES (WKOW) – ABC has revealed 12 celebrities joining the first "Dancing With the Stars: All-Stars" cast.
Fans will be able to vote for one of three celebrities for the final spot.
Here are the all-star celebrities: actress Kirstie Alley; model and actress Pamela Anderson; race car driver Helio Castroneves; Former *NSYNC star Joey Fatone; Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson; Former 98 Degrees star Drew Lachey; actor Gilles Marini; Soap star Kelly Monaco; Olympic speed skater Apolo Anton Ohno; Daughter of Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin; Reality star Melissa Rycroft; and Super Bowl MVP Emmitt Smith.
Here are the three celebrity alumnus competing to be the "Viewer's Choice: All-Star": Actress and singer Sabrina Bryan; TV personality Carson Kressley; and actor Kyle Massey. The three contestants will kick-off their campaign with their first television interview live in-studio on "Good Morning America" on Monday, June 30.
Click here to vote for your favorite "Viewers' Choice: All Star." Voting began Friday morning and goes through Friday, August 24.
The All-Star cast and their professional partners will take the stage for the season premiere of "Dancing With the Stars: All-Stars, Monday, September 24, followed by the premiere of "Dancing With the Stars the Results Show" on Tuesday, September 25 on ABC.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2014 WorldNow and WKOW. All Rights Reserved.
For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service and Mobile Privacy Policy & Terms of Service.
Persons with disabilities who need assistance with issues relating to the content of this station's public inspection file should contact Anna Engelhart at 608-661-2767. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, at 888-835-5322 (TTY) or at email@example.com.


text:
March is National Nutrition Month®, a nutrition education and information campaign sponsored annually by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, designed to focus attention on the importance of making informed food choices and developing sound eating and physical activity habits. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics encourages everyone to explore new foods and flavors, keeping taste and nutrition on your plate at every meal. If you happen to be diabetic, this can be more of a challenge, but living with diabetes doesn't have to mean feeling deprived. The internet is full of great websites dedicated to diabetes management, food choices, and wonderful recipes. Here are 10 of our favorites:
This is the ultimate go-to site for not only recipes, but also meal planning, how-to videos, food and kitchen tips, and more. The healthy and tasty recipes are categorized by budget-friendly, foodie & quick, featured cookbook recipes and even gluten-free recipes. These Kid-Friendly Chicken Fingers are something the whole family will like. Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
This wonderful magazine features much more than recipes. They offer diabetic news, healthy living articles, and many resources. You can sign up on their website to get a daily recipe via email. Their recipe archive includes delicious recipes for diabetics, including dessert recipes (like cake and cookie recipes), dinner recipes, diabetic-friendly holiday recipes and so much more. With St. Patrick's Day right around the corner, how about trying their Irish Beef Pot Roast with Vegetables. Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
A Sweet Life is so much more than a recipe website. Created by a couple, both of whom have type 1 diabetes, this website offers lifestyle tips, news regarding diabetes, blogs by real people with diabetes or caring for others who have diabetes, and more. Recipes are all beautifully photographed and have nutrition information. Looking for a dessert idea? Try this wonderful Cookie Pizza! Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
Like the above-mentioned websites, dLife offers just about everything there is to know about staying healthy and living well with diabetes. You can learn how to manage your blood sugar, prevent and treat both highs and lows, and avoid diabetic complications, and find practical solutions to the everyday issues you face in your home, workplace, and beyond. It also has loads of terrific recipes. Looking for a yummy dip to serve at your next party? Check this out….Amaretto Dip With Strawberries. Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
This site also has great daily living articles, blogs and gives solid advice on exercise, among other things. Recipes are neatly organized, have full nutrition information, and easy to follow directions. How about a nice Slow Cooker Chicken Noodle Soup to warm you up on a cold day? Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
Diabetes Forecast® Magazine is another great source of information for anything and everything about diabetes. The website is full of diabetes-related news, great articles on health, fitness, food, and more. The recipes are beautifully presented with clear and easy to follow directions, beautiful photographs and full nutritional information. They even have ReadSpeaker on their site, so that you can actually listen to the text, which is perfect for those with vision issues. In the mood for Mexican food? Try these great looking Pork Tostadas. Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
Diabetic Living® Magazine online version provides not only recipes, but also articles on nutrition, weight loss, blood sugar facts, medications, diabetes-related news and tips, and more. They've got lots of wonderful looking quick and easy dinner recipes, like this Grilled Chicken and Creamy Corn. Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
What a great site for those with diabetes to connect with others going through the same issues! There are discussion groups for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, medications, diabetes control, diet, treatments and much, much more. You can even "ask an expert" something that's bothering you or you can browse and search hundreds of already answered questions. And so many delicious looking recipes! How about this tasty looking stick-to-your-ribs Dutch Oven Beef Stew? Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
You don't necessarily think of diabetic recipes when you think of Cooking Light Magazine, but it makes sense. Many low-cal and low-carb recipes that one would use to lost weight also translate into being healthy for people with diabetes. In fact, they have a whole section devoted to diabetic recipes, everything from appetizers to salads to entrées to desserts. There's also a complete nutrition section with many helpful tips for the diabetic diet. Here's a great looking side dish; Balsamic-Glazed Green Beans and Pearl Onions. Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
Last, but definitely not least, InformationAboutDiabetes.com is a resource for people with diabetes and related issues. They provide providing concise, up-to-date information, news, articles, videos, blogs, a meeting place for diabetes patients, and they've got recipes galore. These Herbed Crab Cakes look delightful! Click here or on the photo for the recipe.
The American Diabetes Association recommends all persons with diabetes have a medical ID with you at all times. Medical IDs are usually worn as a bracelet or a necklace. Traditional IDs are etched with basic, key health information about the person, and some IDs now include compact USB drives that can carry a person's full medical record for use in an emergency.
March is National Nutrition Month®, a nutrition education and information campaign sponsored annually by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, designed to focus attention on the importance of making informed food choices and developing sound eating and physical activity habits. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics encourages everyone to explore new foods and flavors, keeping taste and nutrition on your plate at every meal. In keeping with that theme, here are 5 great foods to add to your cooking arsenal, if you haven't already.
Avocados are a delicious, creamy superfood that are often overlooked because people think they're too fattening. However, this wonderful fruit contains more protein than any other fruit and is high in healthy monosaturated fats, folate, potassium, vitamin E and the antioxidant lutein. These things can help protect your body from heart disease, cancer, degenerative eye and brain diseases, contribute to better blood flow and reduced blood pressure. Avocados are delicious eaten plain with salt and pepper, and can easily be incorporated into many recipes, including salads, omelets, dips, and more…including smoothies! Add half an avocado to smoothies to add creamy texture and nutritional boost.
Blueberries are not only a sweet treat, but they're also packed with disease-fighting phytochemicals, flavinoids and soluble fiber. They are rich in vitamin K and dietary fiber, and are believed to promote brain health and reduce cancer risk. By protecting the brain from oxidative stress, blueberries may also help prevent the onset of age-related diseases. In addition to making a wonderful snack, blueberries are often used in desserts, pancakes, muffins, jams and sauces. Try tossing some in your salad or smoothie.
Kale, a cruciferous vegetable, is becoming increasingly popular as a nutritional powerhouse. Kale is very high in beta carotene, vitamin K, vitamin C, and rich in calcium. It also contains three times more lutein and zeaxanthin than spinach. Steaming kale yields the greatest nutritional benefits, but it may also be stir-fried, sautéed or boiled, added to salads or used to replace spinach or collard greens in recipes. It is widely believed that consuming kale lowers one's risk for cancer and aids in the body's detoxification system.
Pomegranates are loaded with antioxidants and fiber, rich in vitamins C and K, potassium, and anti-inflammatory phytochemicals. They are mainly available fresh in the fall. About the size of an apple, the deep red fruit is filled with jewel-toned seeds held in place with a spongy membrane. The seeds are sweet-tart and crunchy, and are the only part of the plant that is edible. Squeeze for ruby red juice to use in sauces, marinades and dressings or eat the seeds plain, with fruits, on salads, or atop low-fat yogurt and desserts.
Sweet potatoes are popular in the south and in the rest of the country during the holiday season, but they're packed with nutrients and dietary fiber, and should be added to your diet year-round. Sweet potatoes top the charts in vitamin A concentration, offering up to 90 percent of one's daily recommended intake in one serving, and are good sources of beta-carotene, vitamin B-6, vitamin C, calcium, and potassium (Vitamin A and beta-carotene are essential for both eye and skin health). Sweet potatoes contain an enzyme that converts most of its starches into sugars as the potato matures. This sweetness continues to increase during storage and when they are cooked. There are myriad ways to prepare sweet potatoes. Besides the traditional recipes (candied, sweet potato pie, whipped, fries) sweet potatoes are wonderful baked in the skins, grilled or sautéed. You can substitute them in place of russet potatoes in stews, hashes, soups, casseroles and more.
What are you waiting for? Start cooking with healthier foods now!
Sources: Academy of Nutrition and Diatetics, WebMD, Wikipedia
St. Patrick's Day is right around the corner on March 17th. Many of us will celebrate by wearing green, eating corned beef and cabbage, going to parties and perhaps imbibing a little. But what do we really know about the origins, legends and traditions surrounding this day?
St. Patrick is the patron saint of Ireland. He is thought to have been born in England or Scotland around the end of the 4th century AD. He was abducted by pirates in Wales and sold into slavery in Ireland. After some years he escaped to Britain, then France, where he joined a monestary. When he was bishop, he dreamed that he was supposed to go back to Ireland to tell them about God. There, he converted the Gaelic Irish to Christianity.
There are many legends associated with St Patrick. It is said that he used the three-leafed shamrock to explain the concept of the Trinity; which refers to the combination of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is where the association between clover and St. Patrick's Day began. Legend also tells of Saint Patrick putting the curse of God on venomous snakes in Ireland and driving all the snakes into the sea where they drowned.
Patrick's mission in Ireland lasted for over 20 years. He died on March 17, AD 461. That day has been commemorated as St. Patrick's Day ever since.
What began as a religious feast day for the patron saint of Ireland has become an international festival celebrating Irish culture with parades, dancing, special foods and a whole lot of green.
The traditional color associated with St. Patrick was blue, not green. Over time green took over in popularity due to Ireland's nickname as "The Emerald Isle", the green in the Irish flag and the clover that St. Patrick used in his teachings about Catholicism. People started picking clover to wear in their lapel on St. Patrick's Day and thus began the tradition of "wearing green".
On the holiday, people in Ireland do not wear as much green or celebrate quite as wildly as revelers do elsewhere, although there is a legend that leprechauns will pinch anyone they can see. It was believed that wearing green makes you invisible to leprechauns. Pinching someone who is not wearing green was done as a reminder that the leprechauns might sneak up and pinch you. This is actually mainly an American tradition.
Leprechauns are a type of fairy, often described as wizened, bearded old men dressed in green and wearing buckled shoes, a pointed cap or hat and may be smoking a pipe. The leprechaun is a roguish trickster figure who cannot be trusted and will deceive whenever possible.
Leprechauns are often thought to be shoemakers, but also associated with riches and gold. Shoemaking is apparently a lucrative business in the fairy world, since each leprechaun is said to have his own pot of gold, which can often be found at the end of a rainbow.
According to Irish legends, people lucky enough to find a leprechaun and capture him (or, in some stories, steal his magical ring, coin or amulet) can barter his freedom for his treasure. Leprechauns are usually said to be able to grant the person three wishes. But dealing with leprechauns can be a tricky proposition.
This can be very difficult. First, you have to find one. Leprechauns can sense when they are being hunted, and hide themselves all the better. Those who find leprechauns always stumble upon them, and the leprechaun is usually more surprised than the human. You might hear them tapping softly on a shoe or just stumble across one in the woods. You really just have to be lucky. When you find a leprechaun, all you have to do to keep him under your control is never let your eyes off him. You can set him down, and as long as your eyes never leave him, he is yours to keep. This is much harder than it seems.
A leprechaun who is caught must grant you three wishes. Almost everyone uses one wish to ask for the leprechaun's pot of gold. Carefully think of what you want your other two wishes to be. Remember the leprechaun is a tricky fellow. Above all, never make a fourth wish. The leprechaun might ask you what you'd like for your fourth wish, but it's a trick. The fourth wish destroys the other three.
However you celebrate St. Patrick's Day, stay safe, and above all, have a wonderful time.
"May your pockets be heavy and your heart be light,and may good luck pursue you each morning and night." - Traditional Irish Toast
Sources: TheHolidaySpot.com, History.com, The Huffington Post, livescience.com
The fourth Tuesday of March has been declared as American Diabetes Association Alert Day®, a one-day "wake-up call" asking the American public to take the Diabetes Risk Test to find out if they are at risk for developing type 2 diabetes. This year, it takes place on Tuesday, March 25th. Although Alert Day is a one-day event, the Diabetes Risk Test is available year-round. For every test taken between March 25th through April 25th, Boar's Head Brand® – a leading provider of premium delicatessen products – will donate $5 to the American Diabetes Association, up to $50,000.
The theme for the 26th Annual American Diabetes Association Alert Day is "Take it. Share it. Step Out." The public is encouraged to take the risk test and share it, and also to start living a healthy and active lifestyle. One way to do this is by joining one of the Step Out: Walk to Stop Diabetes® events nationwide. Step Out events happen mainly in October, but what better way to get active now than by gearing up for a walk event.
Diabetes is a serious disease that strikes over 25 million children and adults in the United States, and a quarter of them do not even know they have it. An additional 79 million, or one in three American adults, have prediabetes, which puts them at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes. Unfortunately, diagnosis often comes seven to 10 years after the onset of the disease, after disabling and even
deadly complications have had time to develop. Therefore, early diagnosis is critical to successful treatment and delaying or preventing some of its complications such as heart disease, blindness, kidney disease, stroke,
amputation and death.
The American Diabetes Association has made a strong commitment to primary prevention of type 2 diabetes by increasing awareness of prediabetes and actively engaging individuals in preventative behaviors like weight loss, physical
activity and healthful eating. Alert Day is a singular moment in time in which we can raise awareness and prompt action among the general public – particularly those at risk.
The Diabetes Risk Test asks users to answer simple questions about weight, age, family history and other potential risk factors for prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. Preventive tips are provided for everyone who takes the test, including encouraging those at high risk to talk with their health care provider.
The risk test is available on the American Diabetes Association website. Click here to begin the test online, or you can download and print out a pdf version.
You can prevent or delay type 2 diabetes. Stay at a healthy weight, eat well and be active. With these steps, you can stay healthier longer and lower your risk of diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends all persons with diabetes have a medical ID with you at all times. Medical IDs are usually worn as a bracelet or a necklace. Traditional IDs are etched with basic, key health information about the person, and some IDs now include compact USB drives that can carry a person's full medical record for use in an emergency.
Source: American Diabetes Association
In conjunction with the recent partnering with NASCAR driver Ryan Reed and the American Diabetes Association's Drive to Stop Diabetes℠ for 2014 presented by Lilly Diabetes, American Medical ID is proud to preview the new Ryan Reed medical ID bracelet, which should become available mid-March. As American Medical ID has done with past campaign awareness bracelets, a percentage of sales will be donated to the American Diabetes Association.
20 year old Ryan Reed is an incredibly talented driver who never let his diabetes diagnosis slow him down. After being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in February 2011, during the height of his racing career, Ryan's approach in his life, career, and goals in racing changed. He found himself in a unique situation and was driven to become a role model in the diabetes community. Reed joined forces with the American Diabetes Association, and drives the No. 16 Drive to Stop Diabetes presented by Lilly Diabetes Roush Fenway Racing Ford Mustang. Reed, a Bakersfield, California native, is believed to be the first full-time NASCAR national series driver with type 1 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association is leading the fight to Stop Diabetes® and its deadly consequences and fighting for those affected by diabetes. The Association funds research to prevent, cure and manage diabetes; delivers services to hundreds of communities; provides objective and credible information; and gives voice to those denied their rights because of diabetes. The Drive to Stop Diabetes℠ campaign includes awareness and educational efforts at select NASCAR Nationwide races, as well as at several off track health and wellness initiatives.
The American Diabetes Association recommends all persons with diabetes have a medical ID with you at all times. Medical IDs are usually worn as a bracelet or a necklace. Traditional IDs are etched with basic, key health information about the person, and some IDs now include compact USB drives that can carry a person's full medical record, such as the fact that they have diabetes and use insulin. Emergency medical personnel are trained to look for a medical ID.
Every once in a while you come across an inspirational person who achieves their goals despite adversity or chronic illness. One of these rare people is in the spotlight right now participating in his 4th Olympics and taking on one of the most grueling events.
Kris Freeman is on the U.S. Nordic ski team, making his 4th Olympic appearance despite having Type 1 diabetes. He monitors his blood sugar as many as 20 times before a cross-country race, and, as he does every day of his life, Freeman secures a tubeless OmniPod insulin pump to his chest and a Dexcom continuous glucose monitor to his abdomen for races.
Freeman has completed the 5-kilometer classic and the 30-kilometer skiathlon so far in the Sochi games. While he hasn't won a medal in any of his Olympic events, he told Yahoo Sports "I don't really care, because I am diabetic and this is what I am — this is who I am — and speculating about what could be doesn't matter. So, I try not to be resentful of the situation. Diabetes is a huge pain. As anyone who knows, it's not a fun disease. It will always be with me. I'm at the Olympic Games for the fourth time, so I'm hoping that people can see that it really doesn't have to have a negative impact on your life."
Next he will participate in the 50 kilometer, a tough competition lasting over 2 hours, which is scheduled to take place February 23rd. Best of luck to this courageous athlete!
Source: Yahoo Sports by Ben Rohrbach. For the complete article, including video clips, interviews and links, click here.
The American Diabetes Association recommends all persons with diabetes have a medical ID with you at all times. Medical IDs are usually worn as a bracelet or a necklace. Traditional IDs are etched with basic, key health information about the person, and some IDs now include compact USB drives that can carry a person's full medical record, such as the fact that they have diabetes and use insulin. Emergency medical personnel are trained to look for a medical ID.
As time goes by from year to year,
One thing is surely true, my dear;
Though decades come and decades go,
Just seeing you sets me aglow.
Time shifts my body; I start to sag,
When I pass a mirror, it can make me gag.
My joints all ache; I can hardly move;
Still a smile from you, and I'm in the groove.
Getting older can be a pain,
But with you along, I can't complain.
Despite the things that we go through,
I know I'll never stop loving you.
Your loving heart turns life to play,
As we laugh at time from day to day.
So I write this poem, and I'll hang my sign,
Saying, "Always Be My Valentine."
- Priya Shroff –
February is American Heart Month. In an effort to continue the drive toward heart health awareness, the following is re-posted from the Mayo Clinic website. For the original article, click here.
You can prevent heart disease by following a heart-healthy lifestyle. Here are five strategies to help you protect your heart.
Heart disease may be a leading cause of death, but that doesn't mean you have to accept it as your fate. Although you lack the power to change some risk factors — such as family history, sex or age — there are some key heart disease prevention steps you can take.
You can avoid heart problems in the future by adopting a healthy lifestyle today. Here are five heart disease prevention tips to get you started.
Smoking or using tobacco is one of the most significant risk factors for developing heart disease. Chemicals in tobacco can damage your heart and blood vessels, leading to narrowing of the arteries (atherosclerosis). Atherosclerosis can ultimately lead to a heart attack. When it comes to heart disease prevention, no amount of smoking is safe. Smokeless tobacco and low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes also are risky, as is exposure to secondhand smoke.
In addition, the nicotine in cigarette smoke makes your heart work harder by narrowing your blood vessels and increasing your heart rate and blood pressure. Carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke replaces some of the oxygen in your blood. This increases your blood pressure by forcing your heart to work harder to supply enough oxygen. Even so-called "social smoking" — smoking only while at a bar or restaurant with friends — is dangerous and increases the risk of heart disease.
Women who smoke and take birth control pills are at greater risk of having a heart attack or stroke than are those who don't do either. This risk increases with age, especially in women older than 35.
The good news, though, is that when you quit smoking, your risk of heart disease drops dramatically within just one year. And no matter how long or how much you smoked, you'll start reaping rewards as soon as you quit.
Getting some regular, daily exercise can reduce your risk of fatal heart disease. And when you combine physical activity with other lifestyle measures, such as maintaining a healthy weight, the payoff is even greater.
Physical activity helps you control your weight and can reduce your chances of developing other conditions that may put a strain on your heart, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes. It also reduces stress, which may be a factor in heart disease.
Try getting at least 30 to 60 minutes of moderately intense physical activity most days of the week. However, even shorter amounts of exercise offer heart benefits, so if you can't meet those guidelines, don't give up. You can even break up your workout time into 10-minute sessions.
And remember that activities such as gardening, housekeeping, taking the stairs and walking the dog all count toward your total. You don't have to exercise strenuously to achieve benefits, but you can see bigger benefits by increasing the intensity, duration and frequency of your workouts.
Eating a special diet called the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating plan can help protect your heart. Following the DASH diet means eating foods that are low in fat, cholesterol and salt. The diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products, which can help protect your heart. Beans, other low-fat sources of protein and certain types of fish also can reduce your risk of heart disease.
Limiting certain fats you eat also is important. Of the types of fat — saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and trans fat — saturated fat and trans fat increase the risk of coronary artery disease by raising blood cholesterol levels.
Major sources of saturated fat include:
Sources of trans fat include:
Look at the label for the term "partially hydrogenated" to avoid trans fat.
Heart-healthy eating isn't all about cutting back, though. Most people need to add more fruits and vegetables to their diet — with a goal of five to 10 servings a day. Eating that many fruits and vegetables can not only help prevent heart disease, but also may help prevent cancer.
Omega-3 fatty acids, a type of polyunsaturated fat, may decrease your risk of heart attack, protect against irregular heartbeats and lower blood pressure. Some fish, such as salmon and mackerel, are a good natural source of omega-3s. Omega-3s are present in smaller amounts in flaxseed oil, walnut oil, soybean oil and canola oil, and they can also be found in supplements.
Following a heart-healthy diet also means drinking alcohol only in moderation — no more than two drinks a day for men, and one a day for women. At that moderate level, alcohol can have a protective effect on your heart. More than that becomes a health hazard.
As you put on weight in adulthood, your weight gain is mostly fat rather than muscle. This excess weight can lead to conditions that increase your chances of heart disease — high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.
One way to see if your weight is healthy is to calculate your body mass index (BMI), which considers your height and weight in determining whether you have a healthy or unhealthy percentage of body fat. BMI numbers 25 and higher are associated with higher blood fats, higher blood pressure, and an increased risk of heart disease and stroke.
The BMI is a good, but imperfect guide. Muscle weighs more than fat, for instance, and women and men who are very muscular and physically fit can have high BMIs without added health risks. Because of that, waist circumference also is a useful tool to measure how much abdominal fat you have:
Even a small weight loss can be beneficial. Reducing your weight by just 10 percent can decrease your blood pressure, lower your blood cholesterol level and reduce your risk of diabetes.
February is American Heart Month. Heart disease is the number 1 killer in women and is more deadly than all forms of cancer, causing 1 in 3 deaths each year. February 7th is National Wear Red Day to raise awareness in the fight against heart disease in women.
There are a several misconceptions about heart disease in women, and they could be putting you at risk. The American Heart Association's Go Red For Women movement advocates for more research and swifter action for women's heart health for this very reason.
We've all seen the movie scenes where a man gasps, clutches his chest and falls to the ground. In reality, a heart attack victim could easily be a woman, and the scene may not be that dramatic.
"Although men and women can experience chest pressure that feels like an elephant sitting across the chest, women can experience a heart attack without chest pressure, " said Nieca Goldberg, M.D., medical director for the Joan H. Tisch Center for Women's Health at NYU's Langone Medical Center and an American Heart Association volunteer. "Instead they may experience shortness of breath, pressure or pain in the lower chest or upper abdomen, dizziness, lightheadedness or fainting, upper back pressure or extreme fatigue."
Even when the signs are subtle, the consequences can be deadly, especially if the victim doesn't get help right away. These are the most common heart attack symptoms in women:
If you have any of the above-noted signs, don't wait more than five minutes before calling for help. Call 9-1-1 and get to a hospital right away.
No matter what you call it – heart disease, cardiovascular disease, or coronary heart disease – it means there is a plaque buildup in the walls of your arteries. As the plaque builds, your arteries narrow, making it more difficult for blood to flow and creating a risk for heart attack or stroke. Women are also diagnosed with heart disease when an irregular heartbeat or heart valve problems are present.
1. Drop the guilt. Women pride themselves on being able to do it all. But sometimes, you need to lean on others; and when you've been diagnosed with heart disease, that's the time to do it.
2. Realize that it's okay to feel vulnerable. Reach out to other women who share your diagnosis and start to build a personal support team. Know when you need to let go of some control and let others take care of you. It may be a struggle at first, as it was for survivor and nurse, Eva Gomez. Eva hated feeling that she wasn't in control as she placed her life in the hands of her fellow medical staff. But once she understood that fear and feeling helpless is normal, she welcomed the support of family and friends. And it was that support that helped her realize that she had a second chance at life.
3. Join support groups. There's no reason to cope with heart disease on your own. In addition to local support groups, you can also connect with other women through the Go Red For Women heart match program. Share your story, then find someone like you. Click here to connect online.
4. Believe in yourself. Yes, the diagnosis is going to create feelings of depression, anger and fear. But it's important to process those feelings and then get past them.
You have the power to reduce your risk of heart disease and stroke. Use these tips to help set you on a heart-healthy path for life.
Chose a healthy lifestyle
A healthy lifestyle is yours to follow if you want it. Your diet, weight, physical activity and exposure to tobacco smoke all affect your cholesterol level and heart disease risk — and these factors may be controlled by:
Know your fats - Knowing which fats raise LDL cholesterol and which ones don't is the first step in lowering your risk of heart disease. Make sure you understand the difference between good fat and bad fat.
Cook heart-healthy - It's not hard to whip up recipes that fit with the low-saturated-fat, low-cholesterol eating plan recommended by scientists to help you manage your blood cholesterol level and reduce your risk of heart disease and stroke. There are many heart-healthy cookbooks and websites to help.
Understand drug therapy options - For some people, lifestyle changes alone aren't enough to reach healthy cholesterol levels or control your heart risk. Your doctor may prescribe medication. You may need to take cholesterol-lowering drugs or blood pressure medications.
Avoid common misconceptions – Knowledge is a key to improving your health by knowing how to truly live a heart-healthy life. Here are a few ways to ensure your heart disease knowledge is up to speed:
Work with your doctor - You and your healthcare professionals each play an important role in maintaining and improving your heart health. Know how to talk with your doctor about your cholesterol levels and be sure you understand all instructions. Follow your plan carefully, especially when it comes to medication — it won't work if you don't take it as directed. Whether you've been prescribed medication or advised to make diet and lifestyle changes to help manage your cholesterol, carefully follow your doctor's recommendations. Heart risk assessments are recommended by the American Heart Association for the following individuals:
Take the Go Red Heart CheckUp - The Go Red For Women Heart CheckUp helps you on your path to improving your heart health by assessing your risk and offering healthy lifestyle information. In addition to your doctor's examination, let us help you assess your risk for heart disease and stroke.
The facts and tips noted above are excerpts from the American Heart Association and Go Red for Women websites. Visit their websites for more detailed information, downloadable guides and more.
Always remember, if you or your loved ones have ongoing medical conditions such as heart disease, you should wear a medical ID alert. With the latest medical ID bracelets from American Medical ID, peace of mind never looked so good!
With the Super Bowl upon us this weekend, many of you will be hosting parties. If you have any friends or family with food allergies, you know that there are sometimes challenges with menu planning to make sure the snacks are safe for everyone. Margaret and Meredith of Plate It Safe have come up with some great ideas. With their permission, this is re-posted from their blog. For the original post, click here.
Holiday events revolving around food can be stressful for people dealing with food allergies and intolerances. The Super Bowl (it's pretty much a holiday event, right?) is no exception. But, what if you could host your own allergy-friendly Super Bowl party?
Many of the traditional Super Bowl foods can be allergy-friendly. And those that aren't can be made so quite easily. Here's our list:
Or, if you like to make your own popcorn, try drizzling homemade popcorn with oil and nutritional yeast.
Check out our Safe Super Bowl Party Pinterest Board for images and links to these and more recipes, restaurants, and products. As always make sure to follow safe eating practices even (especially) when ordering take out food. And, for products, always read ingredients labels carefully.