J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 07-09-2018

Three Dimensional Coaching

Capitalism, socialism and dysability – Simon Stevens’ Viewpoint

I am always been interested in whether people with impairments were better off under capitalism or socialism. These systems replaced feudalism, where productivity was measured in terms of output of families where people with impairments could make some contribution without being seen as defective. The question is how did each idealogical system deal with people with impairments as defective people. Under capitalism, people would have to fend for themselves. People with impairments had the freedom to try to find work that suited them or in large family situations, they were looked after by their family. 

Those who profited from capitalism often set up charities, to help them get into heaven, which looked after people with impairments, often in a residential setting. How the socialist state deals with people with impairments they regard as defective is solely dependent on the moral appetite of the regime. Corbyn’s proposal within an era where people with impairments, which is technically most people, wish to self-define themselves as defective, is to keep them at home on a minimum income with minimum support, encouraging assisted suicide or mercy killings as a way out. In the reality of 2018 in the UK, we have a mixed economy, somewhere between capitalism and socialism. People with impairments enjoy the support provided by a state-controlled health and social care system, with the freedom to be enterprising under a mostly free market system. 

I believe it is this balance that has enabled the slow meaningful inclusion of people with impairments into society as the idea that people with impairments are naturally defective is being challenged. If I had to choose to live under poor capitalism or poor socialism, it would have to be capitalism because I would have a fighting chance to have some control over my life as oppose to simply being locked away by the state. 

Keywords: [“people”,”impairments”,”defective”]
Source: https://dysability.blog/2018/06/24/capitalism-socialism-and-dysability

Unilever’s New Model of Capitalism

Citizens of the world are less and less supportive of capitalism solely based on maximizing short-term profits. More and more companies are acknowledging their obligation to all the participants in their business, from the shareholders, to the employees, to the communities they operate in. Unilever is one such company, realizing and owning their need to contribute to the societal welfare and environmental impact for the countries it operates in. They want to propose a new model of capitalism that focuses on the long term, in which companies try to solve social and environmental problems and give equal importance to the needs of communities, as well as their shareholders. Unilever has over 400 brands worldwide under its umbrella, ranging from foods to household cleaners, including Lipton, Knorr, Dove, and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream; sold in almost every country, with two billion people using a Unilever product every day. 

Unilever developed the brand Lifebuoy with a marketing strategy based on campaigns to educate mothers and children to adopt this simple gesture. It has a triple advantage – the consumer is healthier, the company sees a decline in health care costs for its employees, and Unilever benefits from increased sales of soap. Unilever’s greatest impact is within the agricultural sector. Worldwide, the company purchases 12% of the world’s black tea, 3% of the tomatoes, and 3% of the palm oil. Unilever is connected with more than one million small farmers alone. 

They are able to work directly with the farmers to improve their productivity through a partnership with local and international organizations, expand their distribution efficiency, and train them in new techniques. Oxfam estimates the number of small-businesses that Unilever touches is more than half a billion, and improving their lives and businesses is an effective way to reduce poverty. 

Keywords: [“Unilever”,”company”,”less”]
Source: https://borgenproject.org/unilevers-new-model-of-capitalism

Understanding the anxious mind

Extrapolating from a study he had completed on toddlers,he suspected that the most edgy infants were more likely to grow up to be inhibited,shy and anxious. Kagan went on to find many more such children,and watched a big chunk of them run into trouble with anxiety or other problems as they grew up. AGE OF ANXIETY. The tenuousness of modern life can make anyone feel overwrought. Now,with thousands losing jobs and homes,futures threatened by everything from diminishing retirement funds to global warming – it often feels as if ours is the Age of Anxiety. 

Psychologists have put the assumptions about innate temperament on firmer footing,and they have also demonstrated that some of us,like Baby 19,are born anxious – or,more accurately,born predisposed to be anxious. With slight variations,they all have reached similar conclusions: that babies differ according to inborn temperament; that 15 to 20 per cent of them will react strongly to novel people or situations; and that strongly reactive babies are more likely to grow up to be anxious. WHAT IS ANXIETY. Anxiety is not fear,exactly,because fear is focused on something right in front of you,a real and objective danger. When the fear starts to interfere with functioning,worrying turns into a clinical anxiety disorder,of which there are several forms: panic,social anxiety,phobia,obsessive-compulsive,post-traumatic stress and a catch-all called generalised anxiety disorder. 

Taken together,they make anxiety the most common mental illness. COPING WITH ANXIETY. Having all the earmarks of anxiety in the brain does not always translate into a subjective experience of anxiety. In the modern world,the anxious temperament does offer certain benefits: caution,introspection,the capacity to work alone. An anxious temperament might serve a more exalted function too. 

Keywords: [“anxiety”,”temperament”,”anxious”]
Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/understanding-the…

J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 03-11-2018

Board and Global Compassion Council

On February 28, 2008 acclaimed scholar and bestselling author Karen Armstrong received the TED Prize and made a wish-to help create, launch, and propagate a Charter for Compassion. Our organization, Charter for Compassion, was inspired and created by Karen Armstrong and the Council of Conscience in 2009, and inherits a confluence of contributions made by TED.com, the Compassionate Action Network, the Fetzer Institute, and many others. Through a vibrant Charter for Compassion Partner Network we welcome and communicate the sharing of information, stories and experiences that touch the work of compassion. The Charter for Compassion is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, EIN# 46-3554077. The Global Compassion Council is the advisory body for the Charter for Compassion. Karen Armstrong, 2008 TED Prize winner, creator of the Charter for Compassion, renowned author on religion, history, compassion. Amin Hashwani, Pakistani businessman and founder of the Compassionate Schools Network and Charter for Compassion Pakistan. Monica Neomagus, co-founder of the Dutch Charter for Compassion Foundation, trainer, organizer, social worker. Tori McClure, president of Spalding University in Louisville, the first university to sign the Charter for Compassion; first woman to row a boat, alone, and without assistance, across the Atlantic. Zeid Abdul-Hadi, Co-Founder, Vice-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of an investment and development company in Amman – Jordan; founder of Charter for Compassion Jordan.

Keywords: [“Compassion”,”Charter”,”lead”]
Source: https://charterforcompassion.org/about1/global-compassion-council

on the need to grieve the loss of a shiny, optimistic future to climate change. to take care of ourselves and each other. to accept loss. and to build compassionate, resilient communities, with the ingenuity to face dark times ahead.

I’ve been thinking about this for a few months, and have had a few chats with people about it, but i’m still working things through. It seems almost blasphemous amongst activist circles, and probably mainstream, to talk about grief re climate change. I think we need to let ourselves grieve, support each other in doing that, and recognise that we do have a major loss – the loss of the future we thought we had. that is important to do because we are all human, all precious and special and deserving of care. We need to be functional for the months and years and decades ahead. not still attached to our non-existant shiney future, like someone never moving on from a relationship breakup or bereavement. We need to accept that loss, and carry it with us as we take care of ourselves, our communities, all humanity, all life on this planet. Somehow the other side of grief is a life you can start reconstructing – always changed by that profound loss, but not always defined and constrained by it. They grieved, and they held that loss, and are able to keep living. I do think we have to, probably all of us alive today, go through grief for the loss of a healthy planet, a bright future. I think refusing to allow ourselves to is negatively affecting our mental health and our ability to make progressive change. I think we need to be there for each other, to hold each other whilst we cry, to listen to each other’s pain and fear in a massage circle of emotional support.

Keywords: [“think”,”loss”,”need”]
Source: https://fleabite.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/on-the-need-to-grieve…

Compassionate Capitalism

Citizens of the world are less and less supportive of capitalism solely based on maximizing short-term profits. Unilever is one such company, realizing and owning their need to contribute to the societal welfare and environmental impact for the countries it operates in. They want to propose a new model of capitalism that focuses on the long term, in which companies try to solve social and environmental problems and give equal importance to the needs of communities, as well as their shareholders. Unilever has over 400 brands worldwide under its umbrella, ranging from foods to household cleaners, including Lipton, Knorr, Dove, and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream; sold in almost every country, with two billion people using a Unilever product every day. Unilever developed the brand Lifebuoy with a marketing strategy based on campaigns to educate mothers and children to adopt this simple gesture. It has a triple advantage – the consumer is healthier, the company sees a decline in health care costs for its employees, and Unilever benefits from increased sales of soap. Unilever’s greatest impact is within the agricultural sector. Worldwide, the company purchases 12% of the world’s black tea, 3% of the tomatoes, and 3% of the palm oil. Unilever is connected with more than one million small farmers alone. Oxfam estimates the number of small-businesses that Unilever touches is more than half a billion, and improving their lives and businesses is an effective way to reduce poverty.

Keywords: [“Unilever”,”company”,”less”]
Source: https://borgenproject.org/tag/compassionate-capitalism

Book Review: The Economics of Neighborly Love: Investing in Your Community’s Compassion and Capacity, by Tom Nelson

I expected there to be some overlap of between Tom Nelson’s The Economics of Neighborly Love: Investing in Your Community’s Compassion and Capacity and the arguments and jargon used by the Institute for Faith, Works, and Economics. What I did not expect was to read a book full of claims, anecdotes, and quotes with very little support for the thesis. Nelson wrote this book to encourage people to use free-market capitalism to love their neighbors with Jesus; it is written in a manner that requires the reader to already understand what he’s talking about and to already agree with it. Rather than use evidence and hard data to support claims made in the book, Nelson uses quotes from others to say the same thing, but does not quote the data and reason for what other authors have written. I certainly do not mean to imply that there is nothing good in this book-there is; but I would not recommend anyone spend money on this. Instead of writing the book, a blog post of overarching claims and a short bibliography would have been more helpful so that people may actually discover for themselves what it is Nelson desires them to understand. To that end, I would simply suggest perusing the IFWE website and reading the oft quoted When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty without Hurting the Poorand Yourself by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert, which will certainly serve any reader well. I received a temporary digital copy for review from InterVarsity Press via NetGalley.

Keywords: [“read”,”book”,”Nelson”]
Source: https://durough.wordpress.com/2017/10/14/book-review-the-economics…

J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 01-31-2018

An Anti-Capitalist Approach to Fashion

There hasn’t yet been a book that links fashion and capitalism so directly, so ‘Stitched Up. The Anti-Capitalist Book of Fashion’ by Tansy Hoskins, is something of a first and Tansy teases and picks at the threads of the industry, pulling them to unravel dark undersides that are, so she argues, caused by the system that governs the fashion industry – capitalism. At the book launch last week, fashion and it’s practices were interrogated by Tansy, her panel of guest speakers and a packed and engaged audience at the Rag Factory in East London. The book sheds light on the fashion industry’s unsavory practices by addressing a range of issues from the exploitation of workers along the supply chain, from garment workers’ rights, working conditions for models, the pressures and problems of a one-size-(zero)-fits-all aesthetic, the role of the fashion media, to the emphasis on people as consumers rather than citizens. As Tansy said at the beginning of the evening, “Fashion is a lens to look at capitalism through.” And the various problematic threads that run through the industry were scrutinized during the evening, with not much offer by way of defence. As the first book to address fashion from an anti-capitalist perspective, Tansy’s hope is that people will be able to see more clearly what fashion represents i.e. largely the best interests of corporations and their profit margins. Discussions about fashion need more than this too, so as not to be in danger of ‘victimising’ fashion, of seeing fashion only as a form of exploitation is to neglect it’s role as creative, engaging and inspiring. That at the end of book Tansy recognises, “Fashion will never be free without an end to capitalism. And yet fashion can contribute to the remaking of the world. It has the ability to replace the old with the new, to makes us hope and dream”. After Tansy introduced her book, Nadia Idle, of War on Want, discussed the issues around workers rights and the Love Fashion Hate Sweatshops campaign; Leah Borromeo showed her film ‘Dirty White Gold’ and Dunja Knezevic of the Models Union told how she’d created the first union for the industry. “Fashion fashions our bodies” asserted Susie. Can we dare to occupy our own bodies, embody them even, rather than constantly sculpt them, continuously fashion them? Fashion can be this space, a place for inspiration and debate, it can contribute more to the discussion than pretty frocks – it can, embrace diversity and yet address adversity. Fashion as an appeal as something more than shopping, as Tansy says in her book fashion is “Truly glorious and enthralling” and “An incredibly skilled and demanding art form”, that can hopefully play a role in a world that people want to see.

Keywords: [“fashion”,”book”,”Tansy”]
Source: http://sustainable-fashion.com/blog/an-anti-capitalist-approach-to-fashion

BOTTOM LINE- The true costs of Reagan and extreme capitalism by Sam Smith

BOTTOM LINEThe true costs of Reagan and extreme capitalism by Sam Smith. Reagan was still just a brash voice for the wealthy, the greedy, and the lucky, a Bill O’Reilly with charm. As Newt Gingrich noted, “Margaret Thatcher was the forerunner who made Reagan possible. The 1979 campaign was the direct model from which we took much of the 1980 Republican campaign.” To be sure, Reagan and Thatcher can not be blamed for everything that followed. As Gingrich remarked, “In a lot of ways Tony Blair is Margaret Thatcher’s adopted son.” Still it was Thatcher and Reagan that got things rolling. “I do not propose that Reagan and his aides are fascists, but I do suggest that they could well – because of their ignorance, selfishness and egotism – be leading us into a proto-fascist period in which America would accept accelerated depreciation of its democratic values based on the faulty premises so effectively sold by the Reagan crowd.” “Stand back a minute and look around you. We face a massive deficit and what does our president want to do to correct it? Increase still further military spending even at the cost of destroying programs that have been an integral part of American life for decades. Forget about the issue of priorities and think what this says about who holds power in this country. When people starve to feed the military machine, democracy is in deep trouble. In truth, the Reagan administration is an attempt to turn the military-industrial combination from a complex to a full autocracy.” “Part of the problem stems from the cultural background of the Reagan elite; they are used to being bosses, they now have the key to executive washroom of the world, America, and damned if anyone else is going to get in. This executive suite mentality helps perhaps to explain why the Reagan people are so abysmal at the ordinary politics of compromise and negotiation. They’re best at telling people what to do, only now instead of it being a branch manager it’s a senator, an interest group or another once sovereign nation. Listen to them talking about why they won’t help this or that segment of the population; their rhetoric is that of a CEO announcing the closing of a plant to improve the profitability of the company…”. Reagan transformed American politics into show business and the media was glad to join the cast. Reagan had taught us that truth and reality were no longer important. Reagan was still calling the shots nearly a decade after leaving office. O. So where has all this left us? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are you better off than you were 25 years ago?

Keywords: [“Reagan”,”less”,”more”]
Source: http://www.prorev.com/extreme.htm