Books of Interest
You can research and purchase these books from Barnes and Nobles, Penguin Books, the UN Bookstore, or direct from the Authors.
H.E. Dr. Heraldo Munoz
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Permanent Representative of the
Republic of Chile
A fascinating insiders account of the disaster
of the Dictator's control of Chile.
A unique and fascinating insiders account,
A Solitary War: A Diplomat's Chronicle of the Iraq War and Its Lessons
The United Nation's own Symphony Orchestra Conductor... Joseph Eger
"Einstein's Violin: A Conductor's Notes on Music, Physics, and Social Change
Joseph Eger - Author
$27.95 - Book: Paperback | 6.49 x 9.25in | 464 pages | ISBN 1585423882 | 17 Mar 2005 | Tarcher
Joseph Eger's life is a testimony to the power of music. Among the most venerated classical conductors of his generation, Eger has discovered within music a universal language that not only unites people across cultures but also suggests something about the physical rules of life itself.
In Einstein's Violin, Eger distills more than half a century of personal experience and what it has taught him about how music is uncannily similar in its design to the concepts of "string theory" that have become overwhelming popular in today's theoretical physics. Eger deals with how music relates not only to the physical world but to the social one as well. He was among the first classical performers to see music as a force for change, leading him to cross enemy lines in the Middle East, to perform fusion concerts with rock stars including John Lennon, and to become a voice for social advocacy from the hearing rooms of the House Un-American Activities Committee to the stage of Harlem's Apollo Theater.
Eger's life is a tour through the music and science of the twentieth century. In Einstein's Violin, readers encounter intimate portraits of prominent figures such as Leonard Bernstein, David Bohm, and Albert Einstein. Eger also probes the origins of ancient music in the hands of the Hebrews, Egyptians, Hindus, ancient Chinese, and the schools of Pythagoras to plumb the sources of this unifying language of the universe.
University of Chicago
Revived Schumpeter Economics: The "Economics of Creative Distructiveness"
Hubris Greed for the Rich only Capitalism.
How it works...insight into USA's growing Corporatocracy.
NEW Books on the President, USA Global Policy, International amd USA Domestic Impacts...
Unchecked and Unbalanced:
Presidential power in a time of terror
by Schwarz, Frederick A. O. (Frederick August Otto), 1935-
New Press : Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, 2007.
The imperial presidency and the consequences of 9/11:
Lawyers react to the global war on terrorism
Praeger Security International, c2007.
Illusions of security:
Global surveillance and democracy in the post-9/11 world
by Webb, Maureen.
City Lights Books, c2007.
On the trail of the CIA's rendition flights
by Paglen, Trevor.
Melville House Pub., 2006.
Back to top of page.
Blind Trust: Large Groups and Their Leaders in Times of Crisis and Terror
FROM THE PUBLISHER
Studying the often mercurial and destructive relationship between leaders and their followers, the author applies his knowledge of depth psychology to the cauldrons of greatest unrest throughout Europe, Asia and the Middle East--and illuminates the psychological bases of war, revolution, massacres and terror, offering insight into the minds of Osama bin Laden, David Koresh and other destructive leaders.
Psychoanalyst Volkan (emeritus, U. of Virginia) draws upon decades of personal experience as an envoy, negotiator, and consultant in conflict areas around the world to explore the etiologic bases of war, revolution, massacres, and terror. His analysis focuses on the psychological motivations of large groups and their leaders, covering such diverse figures as Joseph Stalin, Osama bin Laden, and the Prophet Muhammad. Annotation ©2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
"This theory works in large corporations." - Dr. Larry T. Gell, Director-General, IAED
Back to top of page.
"Blood on the Street : The Sensational Inside Story of How Wall Street Analysts Duped a Generation of Investors." - Charles Gasparino 2005
Who can you trust? Many good reasons to keep Social Security intact! Today we are in an "atavistic throwback" of the "Great Robber Baron" period of our history. The obvious strategy of the current government of the "Rich Far Right Radical Capitalists" is to give all the money to the Rich and Corporations. Get rid of Entitlement, Downsize the Federal Government; which means, the end of as many of the social services to the middle class, and the poor that they can get away with. And, make the (workers) little guys and gals pay (risk) their future security by investing (giving their money to the corporations) in a market that goes "UP" and goes "DOWN." If you retire on the "up-market," you win! If you retire on the "down-market," you lose BIG! So gamble your future... you might as well go to the Casinos.
The President of the USA could focus on Healthcare, Hunger, Homeless, Jobs, but these are all social "Entitlement" Issues. Instead he focuses on getting rid of another entitlement system, Social Security. And, then getting the workers to pay/invest their money in the corporations stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Risky business!!
PS: What about the lack of health care for the growing millions of Americans (including children)?
Then, there are all those elusive jobs promised.
And, lets not forget the millions who are going hungry in America every day? See City Harvest.
Back to top of page.
"The Myth of Development:
The Non-Viable Economies of the 21st Century"
by UN Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero (2004)
"Excellent, honest book. Brave! Addresses a growing problem we must face now;
or the consequences will be horrific in our near future."
- Dr. Larry T. Gell, Director-General IAED
"A useful tool for understanding the enormous problems that have to be faced by the world's poverty-stricken,
exploding urban populations."
- Javier Perez de Cuellar, former UN Secretary-General.
From the book...
"... social inequality has increased all over the world."
"... the social structure of countries is beginning to disintegrate."
"... nowadays development is the exception and non-development is the rule."
"Today, there are more than 55 armed groups and more than 33 civil wars in the poor countries
resulting in 5 million people killed and 17 million refugees."
"... a dual planetary society, divided between a prosperous minority (1-2%) of persons and countries ... and on the other, a majority of poor persons and countries..."
On the World Bank and IMF's "Structural Adjustment" strategy for the developing world countries... "that this belief was merely an ideological theoretical notion with no basis in reality. (But, did create massive debt for the poorest countries.)
"Another ideological obstacle to development is the false liberalism behind the actual process of economic globalization."
"The California Model: Expanding cities of the underdeveloped world, producing physical-social unbalance: in other words, creating disequilibrium between the expansion of urban poor population and water, energy, and food." (The basic necessities of life/survival.)
"With this physical and social disequilibrium, development becomes a myth."
"Any family cannot have a healthy and active life without food, water and energy. Poverty, diseases and unemployment will continue; delinquency will be intensified; and the social tissue(structure) would be broken up, turning the poor urbanized country into a Non-governable Chaotic Entity."
"The 'California Model' is impossible to finance and is ecologically unsustainable."
"Many countries and large parts of their cities in particular, are already collapsing into ungovernable chaotic entities under the control of warlords and mafias. State-driven and market-led development models have both failed. Many countries are mistakenly called developing they would, in fact, be better described as non-viable national economies (NNEs).
What is to be done? The wealth of nations agenda must be replaced by a survival of nations agenda. In order to prevent increasing human misery and political disorder, many countries must abandon dreams of development and adopt instead a policy of national survival based on providing basic water, food and energy, and stabilizing their populations.
Furthermore, the survival agenda shall give priority to scientific education, to increase investments in research and development of science and technology, in order to produce and export goods and services with more technological intensity and, in this way, to escape from the trap of exporting raw materials and goods with low technological intensity. It is also crucial the stabilization of the urban population growth and to increase the supply of water, energy and food."
New York, December 2004
(A small sample of a very important book.)
Back to top of page.
"One World: The Ethics of Globalization" by Peter Singer
Yale University Press 2002
1. A Changing World
2. One Atmosphere
3. One Economy
4. One Law
5. One Community
6. A Better World
Back to top of page.
White-Collar Sweatshop: The Deterioration of Work and Its Rewards in Corporate America
"White-Collar Sweatshop" by Jill Andresky Fraser
Bullying bosses, 24-hour on-call weeks, shrinking benefits -- and corporate workers never got their cut of the '90s boom.
By Suzy Hansen
March 1, 2001 | While most Americans would agree that white-collar workers put in more hours per week during the 1990s than ever before, chances are they think that those longer workdays and shorter weekends were the price to be paid for fatter paychecks. Newspaper and magazine stories about stock market whizzes and dot-com revolutionaries have rhapsodized about the juicy perks, big bonuses and take-home laptops corporations lavished on skilled workers in that decade of tight labor markets. Flush with stock options and courted by headhunters during one of the most prosperous decades of the century, these privileged workers, we were told by breathless lifestyle journalists, frequented fancy restaurants and purchased new cars and vacation homes.
Jill Andresky Fraser begs to differ, and she has the statistics to prove it. In her new book, "White-Collar Sweatshop," she argues that the much-hyped economic bounty of the '90s never made it into the wallets of most white-collar Americans. In the years between 1988 and 1998, Fraser writes, the middle 20 percent of American families saw only a $780 increase in annual income, while the richest 5 percent enjoyed a $50,760 surge. "White-Collar Sweatshop" is packed with such eye-opening facts. For example: White-collar males make on average only 6 cents more per hour than they did in 1973, when America was on the brink of the worst economic fallout since the Depression.And if you think that all new college graduates reveled in $60,000 starting salaries, consider this: Between 1989 and 1997, entry-level wages for male college graduates actually declined by 6.5 percent. Women graduates watched their paychecks fall by 7.4 percent. Fraser cites two Labor Department economists who found that "unmarried men and women between the ages of 18 and 29 were significantly worse off economically during the 1990s than they had been in the 1970s or 1980s."
Fraser, a financial reporter, spent four years interviewing workers in their 20s, baby boomers and older employees from industries such as banking, publishing, technology and telecommunications. She also logged on to disgruntled-worker Web sites and visited chat rooms. "Above all, I have been interested in change," Fraser explains. What she found was that during the past decade of grandiose IPOs and fine young millionaires, life has gotten significantly worse for a whole lot of workers -- and not just economically. They're unhappier, too.
There's a numbing similarity to most of the individual stories Fraser relates -- tales of stress-related illnesses, 24-hour on-call weeks, shrinking pension plans, Big Brother-style e-mail monitoring, a temporary workforce completely bereft of benefits and upward mobility, and bullying workplace atmospheres, not to mention smaller paychecks and harrowing staff purges. Surveying the carnage, Fraser detects a recent transformation in corporate America "equivalent to an industrial revolution for white-collar workers who, by necessity, have learned to adjust."
(It's important to note that Fraser mostly writes about America's larger corporations, not dot-coms. She saves that revolution for later, using it to demonstrate how traditional white-collar Americans preferred to risk everything at a dot-com rather than deal with the drudgery and injustice of their jobs in more traditional industries.)
"White-Collar Sweatshop" boasts more than just numbers; Fraser names names and details hair-raising policies at well-known corporations in vibrant detail. Certain employee-unfriendly companies and hard-as-nails CEOs keep popping up throughout the book, such as Andrew Grove of <http://www.salon.com/directory/topics/intel/index.html>Intel, Sandy Weill of Citigroup and Louis Gerstner of <http://www.salon.com/directory/topics/ibm/index.html>IBM.
Grove, author of the appropriately titled "Only the Paranoid Survive" (a sort of corporate Bible for aspiring egomaniacs), once slammed "a stave of wood the size of a baseball bat" on a conference table to rebuke an employee who arrived late for a meeting. At Intel, Grove initiated a creepy "rankings and ratings" system designed to measure the productivity of each employee against his or her co-workers. One weary staffer, tired of looking over his shoulder, complained that "it got so bad you were afraid to help other people."
CEOs' salaries jumped 490 percent while workers got e-mail-free weekends
Next page | <http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/03/01/sweatshop/index1.html>
Why are we surprised about an attack on America? Read "Blowback."
MUST READING: China Threat! Also "Betrayal" by the same Author.
Back to top of page.\
A possible solution to the inequalities of Capitalism - "Binary Economics"
Information and links about Professor Robert Ashford, Professor of Law, Syracuse University, College of Law will be posted here shortly.
See TV interview of Professor Robert Ashford on Binary Economics on
MMN Cable TV Channel 34 and RCN 109 at 1:00 PM on Monday, May 14, 2001. IAED TV
Co-Author of the fasinating book on a "new" economics: "Binary Economics" (See the Review)
Web sites directly related to Professor Robert Ashford and Binary Economics are: http://www
Composer of Classical music: "Ashord: Heroes & Heroines"
Nigel Classics, PO Box 144153, Coral Gables, Florida 33114, Tel: 305-461-3322 or 1-800-583-9909
For more information on "Binary Economics" do a search on your web broswer.
To contact Professor Robert Ashford:
Other websites related to Binary Economics:
A Sample of : "One World: The Ethics of Globalization"
When subjected to the test of impartial assessment, there are few strong grounds for giving preference to the interests of one's fellow citizens, and none that can override the obligation that arises whenever we can, at little cost to ourselves, make an absolutely crucial difference to the well-being of another person in real need. Hence the issue of foreign aid is a matter with which citizens of any country of the developed world ought to be concerned. Citizens of the United States should feel particularly troubled about their country's contribution. Among the developed nations of the world, ranked according to the proportion of their Gross National Product that they give as development aid, the United States comes absolutely, indisputably, last.
Many years ago, the United Nations set a target for development aid of 0.07 percent of Gross National Product. A handful of developed nations -Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden-meet or surpass this very modest target of giving 70 cents in every $100 that their economy produces to the developing nations. Most of them fail to reach it. Japan, for example, gives 0.27 percent. Overall, among the affluent nations, official development assistance fell from 0.33 percent of their combined GNP in 1985 to 0.22 percent in 2002. But of all the affluent nations, none fails so miserably to meet the United Nations target as the United States, which in 2000, the last year for which figures are available, gave 0.10 percent of GNP, or just 10 cents in every $100 its economy produces, one-seventh of the United Nations target. That is less in actual US dollars than Japan gives-about $10 billion for the United States, as compared with $13.5 billion for Japan-although the U.S. economy is roughly twice the size of Japan's. And even that miserly sum exaggerates the U.S. aid to the most needy, for much of it is strategically targeted for political purposes. The largest single recipient of U.S. official development assistance is Egypt. (Russia and Israel get even more aid from the United States than Egypt, but it is not classified as development assistance.) Tiny Bosnia and Herzegovina gets a larger allocation from the United States than India. Japan, on the other hand, gives to Indonesia, China, Thailand, India, the Philippines, and Vietnam, in that order. India, for instance, gets more than five times as much assistance from Japan as it gets from the United States. Only a quarter of U.S. aid, as compared to more than half of Japan's aid, goes to low-income countries.
'When I make these points to audiences in the United States, some object that to focus on official aid is misleading. The United States, they say, is a country that does not believe in leaving everything to the government, as some other nations do. If private aid sources were also included, the United States would turn out to be exceptionally generous in its aid to other nations. So I checked private aid as well. Yes, a higher proportion of the total aid given by the United States is non-government aid than is the case for other nations. But non-government aid everywhere is dwarfed by government aid, and that is true in the United States too, where non-government aid amounts to $4 billion, or about 40 percent of government aid . So adding in the non-government aid takes the United States aid total only from 0.10 percent of GNP to 0.14 percent of GNP. This is still only one-fifth of the modest United Nations target, and not enough to get the United States off the very bottom of the table. While the United States gives $14 billion in private and official development aid each year,annual domestic U.S. spending on alcohol is $34 billion, on tobacco $32 billion, on non-alcoholic beverages, $26 billion, and on entertainment admission and fees, nearly $50 billion. Turning to government spending, rather than general consumer expenditure, the Bush administration has proposed a military budget of $379 billion for the fiscal year 2003, an increase of $48 billion on the previous year's figure. The increase alone is more than four times the amount the government gives in foreign aid. (Although President George W. Bush has also indicated that he would like to increase foreign aid by $5 billion over three years, this increase will not come into effect until 2004 and is dwarfed by the proposed increase in military spending. On the other hand, in each of the twelve years that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the U.S. government reaped a "peace dividend" that saved it, in military spending, at least six times-and in some years much more-the total amount it gave in foreign aid. Even with the proposed increase for 2003, the U.S. government will still save, as compared with the military expenditures of the later years of the Reagan administration, an amount greater than the total foreign aid budget. None of this peace dividend has been used to boost foreign aid.
These facts are consistent with the claim made at the start of this chapter: despite the lip-service most people pay to human equality, their circle of concern barely extends beyond the boundary of their country. Yet not all the facts point to this bleak verdict. In 1995 the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, or PIPA, asked Americans what they thought about the amount that the United States was spending on foreign aid. A strong majority of those answering thought that the United States was spending too much on foreign aid and that aid should be cut. That response will make the cynics feel justified in their low opinion of human altruism, but when asked to estimate how much of the federal budget (not of GNP) was devoted to foreign aid, the median estimate-that is, the one in the middle of all the responses-was 15 percent. The correct answer is less than 1 percent. And when asked what an appropriate percentage would be, the median response was 5 percent-an increase on the amount actually spent that is beyond the wildest hopes of any foreign aid advocates on Capitol Hill. A few months later the Washington Post decided to run its own survey to see if the results held up. It got an even higher median estimate, that 20 percent of the federal budget was spent on foreign aid, and a median "right amount" of 10 percent. Some skeptics thought that the figure might be explained by the fact that people were including military expenditure in defense of other countries, but further research showed that this was not the case.
In 2000, PIPA asked a different sample the same questions. The most striking difference was that the strong majority (64 percent) that had in 1995 wanted U.S. foreign aid cut had shrunk to 40 percent. But when asked how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, the public was no better educated than before. The median estimate was 20 percent, the same as in the 1995 Washington Post survey. Only one respondent in 20 gave an estimate of 1 percent or less. Even among those with post-graduate education, the median estimate was 8 percent. Asked what would be an appropriate percentage, the median answer was again the same as that found by the earlier Washington Post survey, 10 percent.
The U.S. public's misperceptions about foreign aid have been confirmed in other surveys. A 1997 survey by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University listed five programs and asked which were the largest areas of spending by the federal government. Foreign aid ranked first, followed by Defense and Social Security. In fact, Defense and Social Security between them make up more than a third of the federal budget; foreign aid is insignificant by comparison. In the same year a Pew survey showed that 63 percent of Americans thought that the federal government spends more on foreign aid than it spends on Medicare, when Medicare spending is ten times foreign aid spending.
The 2000 PIPA survey was held shortly after the United Nations Millennium Summit, at which the nations of the world set themselves a series of goals: to halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger, or who live on less than $1 per day; to see that all children have a primary education; to reduce by two-thirds the under-five child mortality rate; to halve the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water; and to combat HIV /AIDS, malaria, and other diseases. The survey showed strong support for these goals, with 83 percent saying that they supported U.S. participation in an international effort to cut world hunger in half by 2015, and 75 percent saying that they would be willing to pay an extra $50 a year toward such a program. The World Bank has estimated that achieving the millennium development goals would cost $40 to $60 billion a year in additional aid for the next fifteen years. If 75 percent of Americans over 18 years old were to contribute $50, more than $7.5 billion a year would be raised-not quite enough for America's share of the additional sum needed, but a good start. It would, of course, be fairer if Americans with high incomes contributed more than $50, and those on lower incomes contributed less or nothing at all; but here I am simply noting what people have said about their willingness to help those in need, outside their country's borders.
Survey results should always be treated with caution, especially when asking about attitudes on topics where people may like to present themselves as more generous than they really are, but it is hard to dismiss the consistent findings that Americans are woefully ignorant about their country's dismal foreign aid record. What people would really want to do, once they knew the truth, is less clear. They have not been offered an opportunity to vote on the issue. No recent American president, or presidential contender with realistic prospects of success, has even tried to make foreign aid a major policy issue. America's failure to pull its weight in the fight against poverty is, therefore, due not only to the ignorance of the American public but also to the moral deficiencies of its political leaders.
An Ethical Challenge
If America's leaders continue to give only the most trifling attention to the needs of everyone except Americans (and the leaders of other rich nations continue to do only a little better) what should the citizens of those rich countries do? And what will the poor suffering mass majority of the rest of the world do?
Thomas Aquinas (700 years ago): Material goods are provided for the satisfaction of human needs and should not be divided in such a way that hinders that goal. "Whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for thier sustenance."
Newsweek January 27, 2003: "It's true the Bush proposed tax package heavily favors the wealthy." William Buffet and Bill Gates father agrees!
| About IAED | IAED Membership | Join IAED |
© Copyright 1990-2012 IAED. All rights reserved.
Return to IAED Home Page or Contact IAED