A recent post inspired this...

According to author Lynne Franks, SEED stands for "Sustainable Enterprise and Empowerment Dynamics".

When the Iraqi leadership booby-trapped and set fire to their oil fields it was about SEED or keeping the US from taking advantage of the Iraq economy. Oil has been Iraq's sole or main enterprise and has allowed the country, as well as other "Arab" countries to become empowered in the global economic and external power dynamic. The war is about SEED, not even about oppression (the US doesn't care about empowering Iraqi people).

As we all now know, the global power dynamic was upset and that's why we are at war. Many people think it's time to spread or share the enterpise/economics/power and the western powers are defending themselves. This is external to me but I am also a part of that dynamic. Personally, I am involved and interested in SEED, as well.

For me SEED is about tapping the power within. I am not trying to gain control of other people but I am trying to create a power dynamic in my own life and at times that, too, seems like a war. There are people around me that look to keep me from ascending for my benefit or the benefit of my family. Perhaps my success is a challenge to the status quo.

For me, the war in Iraq is a distraction and certainly any victory will have some effect but the US could care less whether or not I am empowered. Externally, it's not about me and, internally, it's not about war. The system is destructive and this post is about building, not destroying.

While the external powers battle it out for their SEED, there are things we can do in our own lives and communities as catalysts for change. It is not always necessary to count all the various ills and stresses affecting our chances of survival...they'll always be there. We have a choice to partially or totally ignore the situation a little longer, become immobilized by fear, or get moving with work we can do right now to sustain our goals and make things happen in our homes and/or communities.

While other battle it out in Iraq, for their SEED what can YOU do for yours?

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>A recent post inspired this...
>
>According to author Lynne Franks, SEED stands for
>"Sustainable Enterprise and Empowerment Dynamics".
>
>When the Iraqi leadership booby-trapped and set fire to
>their oil fields it was about SEED or keeping the US from
>taking advantage of the Iraq economy. Oil has been Iraq's
>sole or main enterprise and has allowed the country, as well
>as other "Arab" countries to become empowered in the global
>economic and external power dynamic.

In the extreme -- as if I just heard you say 2 + 2 = 5.

The Iraqi Leadership could care less about the overall Iraqi economy, (or more importantly the people) I suggest you speak to some Iraqi's to get a better picture.......in any event, during the last 12 or so years of the UN Embargo -- Iraq has been selling Oil to the US (and other countries) the whole time -- instead of using that money to feed its people, they pocketed the Money (Saddaam is one of the world's richest people) and let the people starve in order to gain political leverage, as if to say: "Look at our economy, its ruined because of the Embargo).

Fact remains, they had the money to feed those people the whole time, so its not like they give a damn about the economy or the people.

The reason that Oil prices went up in advance of the war, is because of the concern that the supply would be reduced due to the fact that we wouldn't buying Iraqi Oil during the war, also that it would be harder to get oil from the middle east, etc, etc. You should read the Wall St. Journal and similar business publications --- those are the concerns that have been voiced.

Ousting Saddaam isn't going to get us Cheaper Oil, because Oil prices are set by OPEC and we're not taking over the country and wouldn't be taking ownership of the oil.

Furthermore, it hurts the Iraqi people to set fire to the oil wells, because the next leader may be more generous than Saddaam and his cronies and Oil will be the basis of Iraq's Post War Economy, which will undoubtedly benefit more people than the current one does.

Furthermore, the US would be a customer to Iraq's oil industry and would pump billions more into it than we currently do (The Embargo limits how much oil Iraq can currently sell).

So how is that an instance of the US "taking advantage"?

They're setting fire to the Oil Wells, because THEY won't be able to take advantage of them anymore, they're not trying to save the Iraqi people or the Iraqi economy, they're just hurting it.

In pure economic/financial/business terms - setting fire to the Oil Wells isn't helping the Iraqi people or its economy -- its the Political/Economic equivalent of taking one's toys and going home.

Look at other Arab countries like Kuwait or the UAE or a country like Brunei -- these are rich Oil countries where the money generated by Oil is invested into the people, they have free health care, education and no one goes hungry.

I would agree with you if Iraq was one of those countries, but it isn't -- after the first war, Saddaam spent Millions commissioning statues to celebrate his Victory - while people starved.

But don't believe me, talk to some Iraqis.

M2


P.S. I'm not in the camp of the Blind Patriots who sees Saddaam as a threat to us,\ that we need to take out, nor do I believe he was involved in 9/11. I also think the loss of life in this conflict is unacceptable, and I question some of the motives leading up to this war, (IF you can even call it that) - I think there are better options available to get rid of Saddaam -- BUT I'm not going to pretend that the Iraqi people wouldn't be better off without him.

I'm Ex-Military Guy and I understand the mindset very well -- if the Iraqi people actually believed in their leader or better yet, wanted to fight for him, they wouldn't be surrenndering so easily -- hell some of them tried to surrender before the world started -- and the way the British Soldiers described them, (and based on the footage I've seen) they didn't look like well cared for Soldiers whose leader is one of the richest men on earth.

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin’s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin’s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>In the extreme -- as if I just heard you say 2 + 2 = 5.

Funny, I think I did say that. The whole thing does not add up!

It's not about the oil or the people (Iraq). It's about imbalance but, more important, some kind of dynamic has been changed or disruption. I think the US caused this change, perhaps unwittingly, and feel obligated to try and fix it. War is the only thing some people know...force and violence is what they know.

I still think the whole think is about "Sustainable Enterprise and Empowerment" for Sadaam, for the US, for everyone except everyday people. The whole thing went awry years ago and we all suffer because of it.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

I think the issue is about how people perceive power, regardless of where they are or what position they have. People have learned that if you have control of something or powerful weapons you can make things happen to sustain your situation...even at the expense of your own people.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>>A recent post inspired this...
>>
>>According to author Lynne Franks, SEED stands for
>>"Sustainable Enterprise and Empowerment Dynamics".
>>
>>When the Iraqi leadership booby-trapped and set fire to
>>their oil fields it was about SEED or keeping the US from
>>taking advantage of the Iraq economy. Oil has been Iraq's
>>sole or main enterprise and has allowed the country, as well
>>as other "Arab" countries to become empowered in the global
>>economic and external power dynamic.
>
>In the extreme -- as if I just heard you say 2 + 2 = 5.
>
>The Iraqi Leadership could care less about the overall Iraqi
>economy, (or more importantly the people) I suggest you
>speak to some Iraqi's to get a better picture.......in any
>event, during the last 12 or so years of the UN Embargo --
>Iraq has been selling Oil to the US (and other countries)
>the whole time -- instead of using that money to feed its
>people, they pocketed the Money (Saddaam is one of the
>world's richest people) and let the people starve in order
>to gain political leverage, as if to say: "Look at our
>economy, its ruined because of the Embargo).
>
>Fact remains, they had the money to feed those people the
>whole time, so its not like they give a damn about the
>economy or the people.

M2...i am sure you are well aware that under the oil for food program, it is teh US who has been pocketing more of the money..and not the Iraqi leadership.

between january 1997 and the end of 2000, iraq sold $40billion worth of oil. all of the money was deposited into an account and controlled by the UN. only 9.6 billion, less than 25 percent of the revenue, was distributed to Iraq to purchase food and medicine.

the UN took 13.6 billion (34percent) to compensate the kuwaiti monarchy (an already mega rich monarchy one might add) and other victims for the 1991 war. in 2000, 200 million of funds to purchase food for starving iraqis was givien to exxon/mobil. the corporations was listed among the 'victims' of iraq's 1990 invasion of kuwait.
>
>The reason that Oil prices went up in advance of the war, is
>because of the concern that the supply would be reduced due
>to the fact that we wouldn't buying Iraqi Oil during the
>war, also that it would be harder to get oil from the middle
>east, etc, etc. You should read the Wall St. Journal and
>similar business publications --- those are the concerns
>that have been voiced.
>
>Ousting Saddaam isn't going to get us Cheaper Oil, because
>Oil prices are set by OPEC and we're not taking over the
>country and wouldn't be taking ownership of the oil.
>

you are partly correct in that assumption. however, if you will recall from gulf war 1, the kuwaitis drove the oil price down to below opecs set price at the insistence of the US government in an attempt to destroy an iraqi economy that was recovering from the iran/iraq war. so although opec sets prices, those prices arent always followed to the letter.

>Furthermore, it hurts the Iraqi people to set fire to the
>oil wells, because the next leader may be more generous than
>Saddaam and his cronies and Oil will be the basis of Iraq's
>Post War Economy, which will undoubtedly benefit more people
>than the current one does.
>
>Furthermore, the US would be a customer to Iraq's oil
>industry and would pump billions more into it than we
>currently do (The Embargo limits how much oil Iraq can
>currently sell).
>
>So how is that an instance of the US "taking advantage"?

well..because with the way iraq currently sells its oil, and was intending to do so before the war, the us could not be a customer unless they paid for it in euro dollars as oppossed to US dollars. so now, with the new regime that 'may' be installed, im sure that will change.

>
>They're setting fire to the Oil Wells, because THEY won't be
>able to take advantage of them anymore, they're not trying
>to save the Iraqi people or the Iraqi economy, they're just
>hurting it.
>

there has been no proof that iraq has set fire to its oil wells in this war. iraq has dug oil filled trenches, and set them ablaze as a means of stopping coalition advances, but if you have been following this there is no proof of any wells being set to flames.

>In pure economic/financial/business terms - setting fire to
>the Oil Wells isn't helping the Iraqi people or its economy
>-- its the Political/Economic equivalent of taking one's
>toys and going home.
>
>Look at other Arab countries like Kuwait or the UAE or a
>country like Brunei -- these are rich Oil countries where
>the money generated by Oil is invested into the people, they
>have free health care, education and no one goes hungry.
>

please see above.

>I would agree with you if Iraq was one of those countries,
>but it isn't -- after the first war, Saddaam spent Millions
>commissioning statues to celebrate his Victory - while
>people starved.
>
>But don't believe me, talk to some Iraqis.

there are many others who feel differently. it all depends on who you talk to. thats like saying talk to americans about how they feel about bush, or the war. you'll get 6,000,000 diffenent stories.

>
>
>
>P.S. I'm not in the camp of the Blind Patriots who sees
>Saddaam as a threat to us,\ that we need to take out, nor do
>I believe he was involved in 9/11. I also think the loss of
>life in this conflict is unacceptable, and I question some
>of the motives leading up to this war, (IF you can even call
>it that) - I think there are better options available to get
>rid of Saddaam -- BUT I'm not going to pretend that the
>Iraqi people wouldn't be better off without him.
>
>I'm Ex-Military Guy and I understand the mindset very well
>-- if the Iraqi people actually believed in their leader or
>better yet, wanted to fight for him, they wouldn't be
>surrenndering so easily -- hell some of them tried to
>surrender before the world started -- and the way the
>British Soldiers described them, (and based on the footage
>I've seen) they didn't look like well cared for Soldiers
>whose leader is one of the richest men on earth.


i hope you are following more than you seem to be letting on...the 'coalition' ( i use that term very loosely) is suffering heavy casualties..and have not even reached baghdad where they are certain to take the heaviest casualties...the iraqis surrendering have been few in number, and wouldnt u surrender if you were surrounded by us forces. true not all of sadaams standing army of 285,000 is well caref for, but his special republican guard of 125,000 is very well off, and his elite force of 25,000 in baghdad is even better trained, fed, and prepared. this is a war. it is now safe to call it that. all you have to do is look at the contradicting statements that the administratino is issuing. "we have control of the city, we dont have control of the city, no americans are missing, some americans are missing.."

unfortunately, this thing is going to get a lot uglier.

i just wish we could turn it all around..but alas its too late..its going to take a lot more casualties before we are forced into a ceasefire which is essentially a loss because the objective of regime change wont be accomplished.

Darfur Sucks! Free Paris (Hilton)! - Don Cheadle

www.abdulsmith.com

>>>A recent post inspired this...
>>>
>>>According to author Lynne Franks, SEED stands for
>>>"Sustainable Enterprise and Empowerment Dynamics".
>>>
>>>When the Iraqi leadership booby-trapped and set fire to
>>>their oil fields it was about SEED or keeping the US from
>>>taking advantage of the Iraq economy. Oil has been Iraq's
>>>sole or main enterprise and has allowed the country, as well
>>>as other "Arab" countries to become empowered in the global
>>>economic and external power dynamic.
>>
>>In the extreme -- as if I just heard you say 2 + 2 = 5.
>>
>>The Iraqi Leadership could care less about the overall Iraqi
>>economy, (or more importantly the people) I suggest you
>>speak to some Iraqi's to get a better picture.......in any
>>event, during the last 12 or so years of the UN Embargo --
>>Iraq has been selling Oil to the US (and other countries)
>>the whole time -- instead of using that money to feed its
>>people, they pocketed the Money (Saddaam is one of the
>>world's richest people) and let the people starve in order
>>to gain political leverage, as if to say: "Look at our
>>economy, its ruined because of the Embargo).
>>
>>Fact remains, they had the money to feed those people the
>>whole time, so its not like they give a damn about the
>>economy or the people.
>
>M2...i am sure you are well aware that under the oil for
>food program, it is teh US who has been pocketing more of
>the money..and not the Iraqi leadership.
>
>between january 1997 and the end of 2000, iraq sold
>$40billion worth of oil. all of the money was deposited into
>an account and controlled by the UN. only 9.6 billion, less
>than 25 percent of the revenue, was distributed to Iraq to
>purchase food and medicine.
>
>the UN took 13.6 billion (34percent) to compensate the
>kuwaiti monarchy (an already mega rich monarchy one might
>add) and other victims for the 1991 war. in 2000, 200
>million of funds to purchase food for starving iraqis was
>givien to exxon/mobil. the corporations was listed among the
>'victims' of iraq's 1990 invasion of kuwait.

1. You don't honestly Believe that Saddaam is following UN rules to the letter and not generating money elsewhere do you? He finds money to build statues......

2. Just based on your example - 9.6 Billion is a TON of money - and I'm sure some food is produced domestically. A better question is, how much of that money was actually spent on food.

3. Considering Saddaams vast personal fortune (in the Billions) -the money coming in (He could've always asked to sell more to buy food -- but I never heard of anyone petitioning for that, just to get the embargo lifted all together)






>>
>>The reason that Oil prices went up in advance of the war, is
>>because of the concern that the supply would be reduced due
>>to the fact that we wouldn't buying Iraqi Oil during the
>>war, also that it would be harder to get oil from the middle
>>east, etc, etc. You should read the Wall St. Journal and
>>similar business publications --- those are the concerns
>>that have been voiced.
>>
>>Ousting Saddaam isn't going to get us Cheaper Oil, because
>>Oil prices are set by OPEC and we're not taking over the
>>country and wouldn't be taking ownership of the oil.
>>
>
>you are partly correct in that assumption. however, if you
>will recall from gulf war 1, the kuwaitis drove the oil
>price down to below opecs set price at the insistence of the
>US government in an attempt to destroy an iraqi economy that
>was recovering from the iran/iraq war. so although opec
>sets prices, those prices arent always followed to the
>letter.

Good Point -- but would that be the case here? How long would it last, what Oil Companies would be affected, etc.

>>Furthermore, it hurts the Iraqi people to set fire to the
>>oil wells, because the next leader may be more generous than
>>Saddaam and his cronies and Oil will be the basis of Iraq's
>>Post War Economy, which will undoubtedly benefit more people
>>than the current one does.
>>
>>Furthermore, the US would be a customer to Iraq's oil
>>industry and would pump billions more into it than we
>>currently do (The Embargo limits how much oil Iraq can
>>currently sell).
>>
>>So how is that an instance of the US "taking advantage"?
>
>well..because with the way iraq currently sells its oil, and
>was intending to do so before the war, the us could not be a
>customer unless they paid for it in euro dollars as oppossed
>to US dollars. so now, with the new regime that 'may' be
>installed, im sure that will change.

That's kinda irrelevant - the value of the Euro is set to match that of the US dollar, it doesn't always happen since sometimes the Euro is below the US dollar and sometimes its above, but its a minor issue, since US companies purchase quite a few things in Euro-Dollars (or in other currencies) - the war wasn't started just so we could purchase Oil in Euros.



>>
>>They're setting fire to the Oil Wells, because THEY won't be
>>able to take advantage of them anymore, they're not trying
>>to save the Iraqi people or the Iraqi economy, they're just
>>hurting it.
>>
>
>there has been no proof that iraq has set fire to its oil
>wells in this war. iraq has dug oil filled trenches, and set
>them ablaze as a means of stopping coalition advances, but
>if you have been following this there is no proof of any
>wells being set to flames.

I'm merely referring to the example Nettrice gave.......if the Oil Wells aren't on fire, then so be it......my response to Nettrice's original post still stands.......

>>In pure economic/financial/business terms - setting fire to
>>the Oil Wells isn't helping the Iraqi people or its economy
>>-- its the Political/Economic equivalent of taking one's
>>toys and going home.
>>
>>Look at other Arab countries like Kuwait or the UAE or a
>>country like Brunei -- these are rich Oil countries where
>>the money generated by Oil is invested into the people, they
>>have free health care, education and no one goes hungry.
>>
>
>please see above.

Okay - address how little Iraq invests in its people compared to other oil rich companies, even before 91'

>>I would agree with you if Iraq was one of those countries,
>>but it isn't -- after the first war, Saddaam spent Millions
>>commissioning statues to celebrate his Victory - while
>>people starved.
>>
>>But don't believe me, talk to some Iraqis.
>
>there are many others who feel differently. it all depends
>on who you talk to. thats like saying talk to americans
>about how they feel about bush, or the war. you'll get
>6,000,000 diffenent stories.

True -- but many of those Iraqis only receive information from Saddaam who only presents the truth in a way that suits him and at the same time, I can't see them standing up for him if they have all the facts in front of him -- its not like he cares about them.

>>
>>
>>
>>P.S. I'm not in the camp of the Blind Patriots who sees
>>Saddaam as a threat to us,\ that we need to take out, nor do
>>I believe he was involved in 9/11. I also think the loss of
>>life in this conflict is unacceptable, and I question some
>>of the motives leading up to this war, (IF you can even call
>>it that) - I think there are better options available to get
>>rid of Saddaam -- BUT I'm not going to pretend that the
>>Iraqi people wouldn't be better off without him.
>>
>>I'm Ex-Military Guy and I understand the mindset very well
>>-- if the Iraqi people actually believed in their leader or
>>better yet, wanted to fight for him, they wouldn't be
>>surrenndering so easily -- hell some of them tried to
>>surrender before the world started -- and the way the
>>British Soldiers described them, (and based on the footage
>>I've seen) they didn't look like well cared for Soldiers
>>whose leader is one of the richest men on earth.
>
>
>i hope you are following more than you seem to be letting
>on...the 'coalition' ( i use that term very loosely) is
>suffering heavy casualties..and have not even reached
>baghdad where they are certain to take the heaviest
>casualties...the iraqis surrendering have been few in
>number, and wouldnt u surrender if you were surrounded by us
>forces. true not all of sadaams standing army of 285,000 is
>well caref for, but his special republican guard of 125,000
>is very well off, and his elite force of 25,000 in baghdad
>is even better trained, fed, and prepared. this is a war. it
>is now safe to call it that. all you have to do is look at
>the contradicting statements that the administratino is
>issuing. "we have control of the city, we dont have control
>of the city, no americans are missing, some americans are
>missing.."

I wouldn't call the casualties suffered so far as "Heavy" I think each one was unneccessary, but I wouldn't call them heavy and as a Military Guy (Airborne Infantry for that matter) I have a good understanding of what's ahead and I still don't consider this a war.

I read a report this morning that we're only 100 miles from Baghdad -- apparently we've covered 600 miles in a matter of days, in Infantry Terms that's wicked fast. Remember, I did Airborne Infantry and I was originally a Field Artillery Guy and to cover that many miles in so short a time is phenomenonal.

Like Chris Rock said, its not a war, its a Jack.


>unfortunately, this thing is going to get a lot uglier.
>
>i just wish we could turn it all around..but alas its too
>late..its going to take a lot more casualties before we are
>forced into a ceasefire which is essentially a loss because
>the objective of regime change wont be accomplished.

That's not going to happen in this case -- there are a lot of folks in the Military who feel we should've marched on in and taken Baghdad the first time, given a second chance, I doubt our leadership will stop until Baghdad is taken.

There are lot of "capabilities" of our military that you're probably not aware of, that may or may not have been used or may being used right now, but we're not aware of. You're just seeing the "TV War" -- when these other capabilities e.g. Special Forces are fully utilized, or rather when they're utilized against Saddaam's elite Troops in conjunction with what we're already doing, it will get Uglier, but we will take Baghdad.

Also -- about conflicting reports, a lot of them aren't meant to be misleading, they just come from the Battlefield where there is a lot of confusion and people think they see things that they didn't see. So the reports are always off initially.

I know from live-fire excercises that things get hairy and you don't sort it all out until later.



-M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin’s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin’s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

I don't think this is a war about oil at all. Oil is just the smokescreen. I think this is more a war about expanding the American empire like the Romans use to do i.e. "Run your own country but we'll set up a base for us here." The British should have taken notes...

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

Before this thread gets totally focused on the current war see below:

>While other battle it out in Iraq, for their SEED what can
>YOU do for yours?

This is more than a war post even though I used it as a bad example. The war is happening externally and we can use it to see how things can go wrong. This is about the idea of seeking your own sustainable enterprise and empowerment, not to control or dominate others or to use power to destroy or oppress. How can you gain more self-esteem, develop courage, plan successful projects, or master your own destiny? How do you incorporate vision with sustainability, values, and ethics into business?

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

lol.

thats what i meant to address before i saw M2's response.

so my question to u is, is there a way that captilalism can be accomplished without being unethical, or driving down other people in order for you to be on top?

isnt that the nature of a competitive system?

even if you start a unique business, pretty soon, it wont be unique anymore, and you'll have to fend off those who have mastered the learning curve and can offer a lot more or the same at a lot less than u...

right?

Darfur Sucks! Free Paris (Hilton)! - Don Cheadle

www.abdulsmith.com

>so my question to u is, is there a way that captilalism can
>be accomplished without being unethical, or driving down
>other people in order for you to be on top?
>
>isnt that the nature of a competitive system?

Franks' "The SEED Handbook" is about how to plan a new business based on integrity, personal values, and openness. It's about balancing personal and professional goals, developing projects that empower people (women) and their families/communities through financial independence. Also, it's about returning to spiritual values, serving society instead of exploiting it and taking control of one's own life by running healthy businesses to gain independence.

Is it possible to remain integral and true in a competitive environment? I think so but the question each person needs to ask is, "Am I still serving my stakeholders OR am I serving some other interest?" If the project is true to the core values and the vision then it's possible that one can seek out success through establishing productive partnerships, esp. for sustainability. Rather than compete the business collaborates. Of course, so many business folks misunderstand this. They collaborate in ways that create walls and alienate certain groups in the community. Perhaps it depends on who the stakeholders are.

For example, in the community media and technology field there are two movements struggling to converge. Each movement has their own p.o.v. about what community access means. The media folks see public access as giving people the tools to create programs for cable TV. The technology people want to bridge the digital divide by offering access to people to gain skills to better their lives. Both see value in what they offer and provide access to in their communities.

Community media and public access TV folks feel the pressure of their franchise agreements (with local gov. and cable corps.), as well as the development of digital video. Some of them rely on several thousands of dollars from these agreements to sustain themselves. They are forced to provide TV access and not the emerging technology. They are unable to compete with other community centers, esp. tech centers. As government policies change (FCC) and cable companies get swept up in mergers and takeovers, these community media centers are forced to diversify their funding and, as a result, compete with their neighbors for $$$. Many of these centers have gotten away from their core values and missions.

The same can be said for community tech centers. This movement was based on computer access for the underserved but reports show that the digital divide is shrinking, with more and more homes having computer/tech access. There is less and less money allocated to related initiatives and the centers are competing with others for a shrinking pot of $$$.

I know these issues well. Externally, things are changing and making it harder to stay focused. I started a community tech center inside of a public access TV center. However, instead of focusing on access, I focused on opportunity, for myself, as well as the people we serve. I realized that my multimedia center was unique but not for long. My vision was to create a community hub but then I realized I could be that hub. My projects are both local and national. I am spreading out a little while staying true to my own mission/vision.

It's tricky. I run the risk of alienating people but I am good at sharing resources and knowing when to hold back, develop new projects and find resources. I think balance and resourcefulness is key. The idea is creating multiple spaces to see the vision fulfilled, esp. local, national and international, as well as educational, nonprofit and for profit.

My vision works in several environments. My core values remain the same no matter what. I've rejected partnerships with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development in D.C. (for example), as well as with key political folks in the city (Boston) to remain true to my vision. I've used the Internet to create a name for myself (listservs) as well as conferences and other networking venues. The more people that know about what I am doing the more opportunities come my way. I am not really competing with folks, just building bridges and forging new territory all the time.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

quite a bit to marinate on.

good stuff.

thanks.

Darfur Sucks! Free Paris (Hilton)! - Don Cheadle

www.abdulsmith.com

sorry...but that's sort of how I think. I can't stay too focused in terms of various opportunities in this climate we're in but I can sustain my vision. I think that's what I was trying to get at. I am working within these situations or environments but still feel like I am doing what I set out to do.

SEED is about maintaining a dynamic that is beneficial both personally (internally) and professionally/externally. I'll know when to settle or focus on one thing but until then I am relying on intuition and not doing things just for a buck or two.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>so my question to u is, is there a way that captilalism can
>be accomplished without being unethical, or driving down
>other people in order for you to be on top?
>
>isnt that the nature of a competitive system?

What people are you driving down?

First of all, its very easy to run an ethical business, people do it all the time.

Second, Capitalism creates jobs and wealth for a lot more people than just the owners. A successful business will create wealth for the owner and his family -- and in addition to that, it can create jobs for dozens if not thousands of people, many of whom may not have had jobs before or get better jobs through this new company.

E.g. Capitalism (contrary to the common myth & cliche) does not create more poor people.

Finally, competition drives people to excellence. To do better than my competitor, I have to provide a better product or service, doing so doesn't mean that I'm unethically driving my competitor out of business.



>even if you start a unique business, pretty soon, it wont be
>unique anymore, and you'll have to fend off those who have
>mastered the learning curve and can offer a lot more or the
>same at a lot less than u...
>
>right?

So, its called competition? The fact that everyone can't win at something is a fact of life, it isn't a negative or a reason not to do something in the first place.

Also -- see above.

Finally - communal or communist systems have worse flaws IMO, in that people aren't as driven to excel, lack of economic growth & lack of technological advancement.


Peace,






M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin’s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin’s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>What people are you driving down?

I sit on the steering committee of a network of community tech centers. The network was established to share resources since each site gets up to 600k, over 20 years, from a city-managed trust for hardware and other tech resources. The network managed to establish strategic partnerships to get T-1 access to every site (for example). Now, the network is incorporating to manage the trust money for the city and leverage additional funds but they are in fact competing with the individual sites for $$$ because they are soliciting funds from the same pool of funders. The individual sites don't have a chance and many are struggling to operate.

The whole reason I sit on the committee/board is to make sure my site, a multimedia center, is on board to get any resources the network/organization gets, as well as the 60k every three year cycle. I am wearing two hats. However, I think the incorporating network is in danger of being ineffective. Competing with the individual centers waters down grant proposals and other requests for resources.

>E.g. Capitalism (contrary to the common myth & cliche) does
>not create more poor people.

No but it maintains the status quo in many ways, esp. psychologically. The "pygmalion effect" or self-fulfilling prophecy (haves and have nots) helps to maintain "divides". The disenfranchised remain that way while wealth is controlled by a few. Capitalism only works when there is a divide.

>Finally, competition drives people to excellence. To do
>better than my competitor, I have to provide a better
>product or service, doing so doesn't mean that I'm
>unethically driving my competitor out of business.

However, the reason I have the better product is because of my access to better resources. Distribution and placement of these resources is not always equitable.

>So, its called competition? The fact that everyone can't win
>at something is a fact of life, it isn't a negative or a
>reason not to do something in the first place.

I agree to some extent but first there has to be a level playing field. Then, let's see who comes out on top. Many capitalists take advantage of disparity.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>>What people are you driving down?
>
>I sit on the steering committee of a network of community
>tech centers. The network was established to share
>resources since each site gets up to 600k, over 20 years,
>from a city-managed trust for hardware and other tech
>resources. The network managed to establish strategic
>partnerships to get T-1 access to every site (for example).
>Now, the network is incorporating to manage the trust money
>for the city and leverage additional funds but they are in
>fact competing with the individual sites for $$$ because
>they are soliciting funds from the same pool of funders.
>The individual sites don't have a chance and many are
>struggling to operate.

That's not a good example since you could have the same situation happen in a communist society -- the issue is a finite # of resources.


>The whole reason I sit on the committee/board is to make
>sure my site, a multimedia center, is on board to get any
>resources the network/organization gets, as well as the 60k
>every three year cycle. I am wearing two hats. However, I
>think the incorporating network is in danger of being
>ineffective. Competing with the individual centers waters
>down grant proposals and other requests for resources.

See above.

>>E.g. Capitalism (contrary to the common myth & cliche) does
>>not create more poor people.
>
>No but it maintains the status quo in many ways, esp.
>psychologically. The "pygmalion effect" or self-fulfilling
>prophecy (haves and have nots) helps to maintain "divides".
>The disenfranchised remain that way while wealth is
>controlled by a few. Capitalism only works when there is a
>divide.

There is more to the story than that --

First. A divide isn't required for Capitalism to work, that's a Myth, in fact, a strong capitalist society is supported by a large middle class, not a large group of poor people -- who at the end of the day, are more of a drain on that society than a benefit to it.

Poverty has a large societal cost with respect to Crime, Social Programs, Tax Breaks, etc.

Second. Capitalism creates jobs and opportunities for people -- you just have to take advantage, the tech industry has helped Millions of people from Indian, the Middle East and others who have taken advantage - many who would be poor without said industry.

The city of Seattle is a good example, many of its residents benefitted financially from Bill Gates locating Microsoft there and the city's overall economy is better now than it was in the Pre-Microsoft days.

>>Finally, competition drives people to excellence. To do
>>better than my competitor, I have to provide a better
>>product or service, doing so doesn't mean that I'm
>>unethically driving my competitor out of business.
>
>However, the reason I have the better product is because of
>my access to better resources. Distribution and placement
>of these resources is not always equitable.

You could say the same thing about Human talent -- Distribution of resources is never going to be "fair" in a system where competition exists.

>>So, its called competition? The fact that everyone can't win
>>at something is a fact of life, it isn't a negative or a
>>reason not to do something in the first place.
>
>I agree to some extent but first there has to be a level
>playing field. Then, let's see who comes out on top. Many
>capitalists take advantage of disparity.

In what way? Capitalists aren't taking advantage of the fact that someone has less, they take advantage of what they have themselves.

Furthermore, look at Generational Poverty, or even Generational Low Income -- there are a lot of reasons behind the divide in what two people have, and its not all to do with capitalism.

I plan to go to Law School in a few years, a friend of mine from High School became a firemen-- there will be a divide between us wealth wise, (already is really) but is that the fault of capitalism?

No.

Its too simplistic and inaccurrate to state that wealth divides are created for, exploited and needed by capitalism.

The fact that there are poor people accross the bridge in NYC, has nothing to do with my socioeconomic standing in North Jersey, or better yet, the success of my business or capitalistic endeavors.


-M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin’s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin’s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>That's not a good example since you could have the same
>situation happen in a communist society -- the issue is a
>finite # of resources.

The issue is setting an enterprise up for failure. There really isn't a finite number since the network can easily leverage a larger amount additional funds through the US Dept of Labor/Commerce's TOPS $$$ (for example) but instead are going after the local $$$ and perhaps making it harder for individual sites to get general operating $$$ and more resources than the city trust fund can provide.

The above situation is creating a "divide" even as it aims to bridge another (digital). In this case, if the network is strong then the individual sites may fail. This is what I see as far as how capitalism has worked in this society.

>First. A divide isn't required for Capitalism to work

I think that capitalism causes these divides. By it's very existence it often creates or perpetuates a cycle that many do not have the power or resources to break. Capitalism does not make more poor people but it there is surely a status quo that maintains the cycle.

>Poverty has a large societal cost with respect to Crime,
>Social Programs, Tax Breaks, etc.

The poor are not the only ones to benefit from social programs, tax breaks, etc. I know offspring of the wealthy who are on welfare. I also know some rich folks who get tax breaks and engage in criminal activity. They aren't on the news, either until something like Enron happens.

>Second. Capitalism creates jobs and opportunities for people
>-- you just have to take advantage

Almost anyone can get into the doors but we know there is a glass ceiling for many of us. This is the expectation: there is a double-standard or glass ceiling and sometimes there really is. More often than not it is a false expectation but we make it real. For some there is no advantage.

>In what way? Capitalists aren't taking advantage of the fact
>that someone has less, they take advantage of what they have
>themselves.

Oh but many are. If the existence of capitialism maintains the status quo and perpetuates divides then many capitalists are indeed taking advantage. They already have access to the resources or the expectation exists that there is a certain right or privilege to said resources. This expectation is often a part of social conditioning. I am not placing blame on the people who take advantage but I am not trying to blame those who are on the other side, either. It's the system or structure that isn't working.

>The fact that there are poor people accross the bridge in
>NYC, has nothing to do with my socioeconomic standing in
>North Jersey, or better yet, the success of my business or
>capitalistic endeavors.

Again, I say level the playing field and we'll see what happens.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

Is the Author a successful Entrepreneur?

Please don't take my questions as a sign of disrespect, but it seems that the book is talking about dozens of Philosophical issues that have nothing to do with starting a profit making business.

Ethics & Morality are important, but focusing on teaching people how to plan a business that respects both will not teach them how to make money. IMO, common sense can help you with that -- for instance - there are two companies that sell rather inexpensive Pro Audio products, that I refuse to sell. I don't sell them because the power ratings are exagerated, their customer service sucks and at the end of the day, the product is crap and I don't feel comfortable presenting it as otherwise.

That being said, a philosophical book on ethics and empowerment is going to slow people down and not teach them about the hard core business tactics they need to become successful.



-M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin’s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin’s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>Is the Author a successful Entrepreneur?

Apparently. She developed SEED as a network aimed at training and empowering new and established business folks (http://www.seedfusion.com/) and founded Globalfusion, an international communications consultancy.

The book takes a interesting look at how to do business, whether for profit or nonprofit. Sure, there is a feminist lean but I think that's because it supposed to encourage people who might lack the confidence or courage to launch their own businesses. It's about balancing personal and professional goals.

There's another book I like called "Manifest Your Destiny" or "How to Be, Do or Have Anything" and it covers some of the same territory as SEED. I also recommend "The Adversity Quotient."

>Ethics & Morality are important, but focusing on teaching
>people how to plan a business that respects both will not
>teach them how to make money.

Launching a business and sustaining it are different things. When change occurs you have to know how to move forward and not take for granted that every seemingly lucrative project is worth the time, effort and $$$. There's the short-term and long-term visioning and goals to weigh.

If we look at bigger for profits, let's say Apple, they created a "psuedo-religion" and niche market that emphasized certain values, expectations and innovation. Right now, Apple is trying to become more-PC company minded in order to make a bigger profit, at the risk of alienating their niche market. It's not working and after some recent success, Apple is seeing increasing deficits. Many hard core Mac enthusiasts who were willing to pay more for Apple products are considering going PC for less money. In this case, ethics are important.

The same goes for non-profits taking on business models out of necessity. Also, some partnerships and services may alienate stakeholders and send the community a message that the organization has moved away from its mission. They may stop putting time and even money into the organization, including local funders.

In order to survive adversity, there is a certain amount of ethical judgment, as well as staying true to the mission or vision that needs to happen to ensure the business stays afloat to make $$$ in the future.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>>Is the Author a successful Entrepreneur?
>
>Apparently. She developed SEED as a network aimed at
>training and empowering new and established business folks
>(http://www.seedfusion.com/) and founded Globalfusion, an
>international communications consultancy.

But how is Globalfusion doing and more importantly, how is the network doing?

Sometimes someone starts one business, is successful at it, but is unable to teach anyone else how to do the same, E.g. They got lucky and don't really possess the knowledge to teach others to achieve similar succcess.

Some successful enterpreneurs are able to use their knowledge to help others, others aren't.



>The book takes a interesting look at how to do business,
>whether for profit or nonprofit. Sure, there is a feminist
>lean but I think that's because it supposed to encourage
>people who might lack the confidence or courage to launch
>their own businesses. It's about balancing personal and
>professional goals.

It sounds like more of a motivational book than a book about business.

>There's another book I like called "Manifest Your Destiny"
>or "How to Be, Do or Have Anything" and it covers some of
>the same territory as SEED. I also recommend "The Adversity
>Quotient."

Again -- more motivation.

For me, I don't feel I need to be more motivated or need a book about shooting for goals.

I need hard-core business info, sales, marketing, managing funds, seeking investors, VC, etc.

>>Ethics & Morality are important, but focusing on teaching
>>people how to plan a business that respects both will not
>>teach them how to make money.
>
>Launching a business and sustaining it are different things.
> When change occurs you have to know how to move forward and
>not take for granted that every seemingly lucrative project
>is worth the time, effort and $$$. There's the short-term
>and long-term visioning and goals to weigh.

But that sounds too philosphical -- I would say that one should do an analysis (e.g. its spreadsheet time) and determine how much time & money is required for this project, evaluate your window of opportunity with regards to how long you have before you lose an edge by waiting too long and than evaluate how it would affect your current business.

I would than provide a concrete example of how to do said analysis and make the decision -- to me, that's a better way of teaching someone to make that decision.

>If we look at bigger for profits, let's say Apple, they
>created a "psuedo-religion" and niche market that emphasized
>certain values, expectations and innovation. Right now,
>Apple is trying to become more-PC company minded in order to
>make a bigger profit, at the risk of alienating their niche
>market. It's not working and after some recent success,
>Apple is seeing increasing deficits. Many hard core Mac
>enthusiasts who were willing to pay more for Apple products
>are considering going PC for less money. In this case,
>ethics are important.

More complicated than that.........ethics aren't even in play, alienating one's niche market has nothing to do ethics, its about business survival.

Side Example - Caddilac used to be top selling luxury make in the US, now its number 4 or 5 - part of the reason is that they refused to make more modern looking (and performing cars) out of fear of alienating their core market.

Ditto for Oldsmobile who sold nearly 1 million cars in 1989 and is now being phased out - (sales are in the low 200k/year range) - this despite making some good cars in the last couple of years -- it was too late for them to change it around.

As for Apple, they made one of the biggest business blunders in history by keeping the hardware and the OS in house, instead of just keeping the latter in house -- if they had, Bill Gates would be moving lawns for a living.

Furthermore, Apple has been losing money for years -- even before they tried to snag some PC owners, that's why they tried to make the change.

Fact remains, they're nearing the limit of what their current hardware can sustain, Microsoft is gaining ground on them with regards Multimedia applications and the massive gaming market has passed them by.

Ethics and changing market has nothing to do with why Apple is losing money.

The only way they can survive long term, is to combine the best of what they have, with why people predominantly use PCs and do it a better price.

Until that happens, they will lose money like they always do.






>The same goes for non-profits taking on business models out
>of necessity. Also, some partnerships and services may
>alienate stakeholders and send the community a message that
>the organization has moved away from its mission. They may
>stop putting time and even money into the organization,
>including local funders.
>
>In order to survive adversity, there is a certain amount of
>ethical judgment, as well as staying true to the mission or
>vision that needs to happen to ensure the business stays
>afloat to make $$$ in the future.

Alienating a group of customers is not an ethics issue -- surviving adversity requires planning and analysis that I don't think the book is addressing.


-M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin’s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin’s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>But how is Globalfusion doing and more importantly, how is
>the network doing?

Good question. However, I think it's important to note that sometimes a project or initiative has a timeframe. Franks is successful because she has a book to motivate and teach others about starting a business. She also has a company and a web site. I found a few sites with GlobalFusion attached but I'll have to do further research to see where the company is. The SEED web site is up and current. It also has a community (http://www.seedfusion.com/community/guestbook.asp) and events. There are plenty of testimonials there about how SEED has helped people.

>It sounds like more of a motivational book than a book about
>business.

Sometimes people need a little motivation in order to succeed. We all need models and mentors along the way to success. Part of being a leader is being a follower and at times it's important to see how others are doing it (business). Franks seems to have her act together.

>I need hard-core business info, sales, marketing, managing
>funds, seeking investors, VC, etc.

It's really about balance...as well as resources.

I am always teaching folks how to do a SWOT, action plan and timeline. I am pretty good at charting workflow and projecting. These things are critical but so is the other stuff. My supervisor calls me a "heatseeker" and I think I do fairly well as far as knowing what's happening both externally and internally (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats).

>More complicated than that.........ethics aren't even in
>play, alienating one's niche market has nothing to do
>ethics, its about business survival.

I disagree. Apple's conduct or way of doing business is changing and they are alienating their niche market. That's all about ethics but you are right about it being more complicated. I was reading an article in MacAddict (I think) about how Apple was closing out third parties to its detriment. The company claims to be open but is showing they are not. iLife is not open or if it is it's only open to it's own. That decision was made because of the survival mentality but it means that other products can take advantage.

>Furthermore, Apple has been losing money for years -- even
>before they tried to snag some PC owners, that's why they
>tried to make the change.

The iPod is an example of Apple's successful products, as well as the industry-standard Final Cut Pro. There are other high points as well and that's why they are still in the game. My point here is that ethics do matter especially if that's what you are known for.

>Alienating a group of customers is not an ethics issue --
>surviving adversity requires planning and analysis that I
>don't think the book is addressing.

I went through a pretty comprehensive management training program at Columbia Business School a few years ago and I did well. The area I struggled with was negotiation. I was not willing to give in or give up anything to make the deal. Although some of my colleagues would argue with me that I am not a good negotiator I still think I am pretty stubborn. I hate sneaks and usually refuse to work with people who are unethical. Integrity is of utmost importance to me, even more so than the bottom line but that's just me. Fortunately, I work with people who are better at that, better at making deals than I am. Planning and analysis is one of my strong points.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

"For me,this war in Iraq is a distortion and certainly any victory will have some effect,.........."

In part the distortion began when "can't find Bin Laden,go after Hussein",and escalating into the call for papers from Vice-President Dick Cheney and whatever about Halleburton during the fallout of corporate scandals.

...,"but the U.S. could care less whether,or not I am empowered."

and this is why you are such a strong person,because you empower yourself and others with strong will and determination and sharing of information.
I have visited your website and passed on to others.

"While the external powers battle it out for their SEED,there are things we can do in our own lives and communities as catalysts for change".

"OIL" has been high on the conspiracy theorist list as a reason for this war,but overshadowed by many who feel the war to be neccessary to free the Iraqui people from a dictator,but all at the same time our rights have eroded.

...."there are things we can do in our own lives and communities as catalyst for change".

In part it happens here each day.I often tell my son,who cares not for message boards,I tell him how much can be learned,or shared with millionsss of people each day,if only he would begin to either,"lurk'(and learn),"post" (and share).

I stated that I am going down to the wire with this war.

I also stated that I have moved on,basically in spirit of trying to have an Intelligence War,and not a Military War.

I found Peace before the war started,after it started that peace remains,even tho my outrage for certain reasons remain,but not out of fear.

I also stated that I beleive this war will basically be victorious for "the powers that be" due to the oil(some way,or another).

After the capture of soldiers,it has raised the level for Victory.

Yes,Iraq is setting the oil on fire,same thing Gulf War,but we recouped(?).

$$$=POWER,always has.
However,one way,or another we will become a part of these profits "however long it take".

Definitely not the "Arab World Will Not Let Us(?america?) (rule,or take over).
But,for sure all efforts will be to court,place a "puppet" government,extending how to $$$profit off their "oil" and in part could it be this why France and Russia are so adamant about not helping America win this war,because of how their stake will be diminished.

Already,one of them is talking about deterring America in whatever way it is,Post War.

I still say,how do we plan to fit in this WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER, I say welcome as how the New World Order actually began November,2000 and has been shoved in our face to this escalation,no matter our outcry!

No disrespect,but putting fear in peoples mind is and always will be a propaganda method and we live in a society that thrives on "Freedom",good times,living life to the fullest.
Tell them that all of that is under threat and you can have your way,once again basically the gift from our government is WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER--we are here to protect you from the ??enemy"??.

"Enemy Of The State" is always a must see for me and has been playing.



I still say how we fit into the scheme of what's to come about the "oil" profits is all in us in a positive way and not because you have chosen,or trying to profit off others lost lives,miserable injuries,future miseries(as some ??defected?? Iraquis are making plans to take over from what the BathParty of Iraq(??Husseins Party??),but Washington ain't quite want it to happen.

Our Military bragging Prowess has angered many,infiltrated a country,alledgedly awaiting their efforts for liberation,temporarily alienated other countries and all of this until we once again do by any means neccessary to get the "oil" of Iraq in a $$$profit scheme.

The American "oil ?barrens? are making(already made) plans.
I received my new credit card days ago,replacing the company that was bought out.I have two different unused ones.
But,we may not put forth efforts to work for these companies,because we are angered,or just feel it wrong what happened.

But for sure,until another differently fueled car is made,well we will be constant,consuming partakers of the ??"oil"??scheme in the name of "Liberate The Iraqui People",we will be funding the current efforts to get the "oil barons" their life long dream come true.

I still say,for whatever we can accomplish,and,or learn to help make change,it is time to continue our present efforts and assess our future that is yes being controlled by our Government.

How will we fit ourselves into the scheme of things.
Like I said I definitely beleive there will be many investigations forth coming,so how can we fit to see that the justice we seek is done.

Post 9-11,yes many still mourning,and it is still discussed.
But,notice how people in part(until alert reminders) are basically back to their old way of life by the settling in minds that they are left behind and must carry on with memories of Family,Friends,Love ones,but they too must survive the scheme of life.

It will take a bit loner,but like Post Gulf War 1-the same thing will occur,especially if the economy rebounds.
To watch a certain news channel,one can get the feeling of how "Oil" is the possible expectation to help jump start the economy.
Whatever is in the newest Tax Cut package,did it not recently pass,or is it just one body passed.
If fully passed ,well,hmmm,just in time when the "oil" profits eventually roll in,stock market last I watched already rising!
And who was we told would benefit from the Tax Cut.

Graduating Attorneys,Paralegals,Future Politicians(avenue to "What's Going On"-that's probably why 3 top Administrators stepped down-because the know "What's Gong On".)

Service Station:well "oil" according to conspiracy theorist is what this war is about.
Well,become hired,better still become an owner,for sure you just might learn something helpful,then sell if you like,pass on your info.

Soldiers:many will become Veterans Of The Gulf War 2.
Many soldiers will not return as they left as evident of recent events and the soldier threw grenades.
They will be families,friends,co-workers.
The family left behind will need help coping with this new soldier,new person.
They possibly could end up spat upon and more from vindictive antiwar protesters.
How will we be there for them--as "Catalyst".

A new dawning basically began November 2000,escalated into the remnants of the un-finished Gulf War 1.

It is this that we are now to become a "Catalyst" of how we fit in for ourselves and others to uplift,coach,just listen,advise where wanted,mentor families,children who are CIVILIAN SOLDIERS,never ceasing like our Government has done,never ceasing to solve,effort to solve,whatever was problems prior this war beginning.

How many National,Internation Laws,Rules,Regulations have changed since November 2000,and absolutely,no one,no one has been able to stop it.
But,still,one lone Janitor brought about "Watergate"!

21st Century the book will be in volumes:

FLOODGATE
Volume 1-geginning with FloridaGate.

But,mindful this is ,maybe not as others might clarify,but November 2000 was the beginning of a slap in our face,upon our minds-- GLOBE-WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

***********************************************************
NELLY: I'm Humble In Life Taking Nothing For Granted

AFRICA: www.bbcnews.com

THE BROKER: John Grisham

"Second.Capitalism creates jobs and opportunities for people.
"--you just have to take advantage."

Capitalism does create jobs and opportunities for people.
It's the unfair Capitalist who give Capitalism a bad name.

I ain't mad at "bling blingers" cause we the consuming public (whoever) want what they do.They are working!

But,completing my fourth storybook.

Writing,.... ....,printing,self laminating(for preservation) at Kinko,all at a final cost of $17.00-8 pages(that's just Kinko's-glue,cutter,copier,laminator,spiral binding),not including my time,labor,ink,printer usage.

I began to somewhat see the cost for the steps of printing a book,no matter how short.
But,I also thought about how established companies are and plan to find out just how much it would have cost,being they get wholesale supplies.

My son the aspiring Chef started out charging $10.00 for a simple pound cake and they sell.

But,I told him he is charging too much.

Making a slam dunk apple pie,he has now been placed on a committe and I see a change coming for great food.
But,Granny Smith apples are high.But not neccessarily the other ingredients.Depending on how many pies he bake it will include

Expensive Granny Smith Apples-Labour-burning Of My Oven and he uses me as a helper and I am going to demand pay!

Expanding himself,or eventually working from home would create "jobs and opportunities" for others as he Capitalise on his talent! and more.

Overhead,Workers,Production(however to get something out),Materials,Time,Labor-all cost,but still just how much is inflated.
Do we ever know until the shoe is on the other foot.

***********************************************************
NELLY: I'm Humble In Life Taking Nothing For Granted

AFRICA: www.bbcnews.com

THE BROKER: John Grisham

Have you ever went to a place where you thought you were welcome and tried knocking on the door and no one answered? I think some people assume no one will answer or when opportunity knocks it's a fluke. False expectations, double standards and glass ceilings are there for some who attempt to ascend or get their own piece of the pie. It depends on what side of the divide you are on or what you have been conditioned to believe or accept.

You means anyone in this case. Capitalism means that we all have a chance to get through our own doors. Unfortunately, some of us put up our own doors or barriers. I am sure there is a cycle that keeps some of us from getting past them.

My mother was a computer programmer and my father a high school drop out. Both had jobs and worked throughout my childhood. I guess I know what it's like to be on both sides. Both of my parents were also raised very poor but they saw reality differently. I feel as if I see both realities, as well as my own. To me the doors of opportunity are phases and every one is like a locked door...not to keep you out but to prepare you for what is going on inside.

Why be solely consumers when we can also be producers and engineers? I think that's what Franks SEED is about. But before I knew anything about that I was a girl who was facing a locked door. I knew that everything I wanted and dreamed of was on the other side so I found a key.

>But,completing my fourth storybook.

I am glad to read that. I am also glad your son is trying to get through his own doors.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

up^

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

after all is said and done with the US getting this oil and rebuilding/financially improving the US economy, will Black folks finally get reparatrions?

Food/Drink PlayersCookbook Info:
To help: L9 Health Clinic http://www.commongroundrelief.org/node/242
DEADLINE: November 22, 2006
Please submit your recipes to playerscookbook@yahoo.com or inbox and don't forget PHOTOS.

*********************************