Common Ground: Eat the Rich

March 2008 | Letters from Readers

Eat the Rich

In your editor’s note last month you stated, “the number of super rich has doubled over the last decade (thank you, Bush administration!).” It’s important for people to also know that the ratio of average CEO to worker salaries climbed to 411 to 1 as of 2006. The poverty rate has gone up over 17 percent since 2000. CEO’s are keeping profits for themselves and sharing none with workers who helped them earn those profits. Salaries have stagnated for most people, jobs have been eliminated and millions have fallen below the poverty line since 2000 — all thanks to the Bush administration.
— D. Eardley, Los Angeles

Reading “Embarrassment of Riches” in the February issue: I believe your comment, “…really, really rich people — there are too many of you out there for your own good,” is a valid statement. However, as I sit with this notion and observe where my judgments and biases emerge, I think it’s important to highlight another point of view.

We look upon the rich as denying others their fair share. From this vantage point, we are holding hands with lack and limitation, which by nature deny creativity, “…the highest expression of spirituality” as Chopra defined it in your February issue. The excessively rich don’t contribute to poverty. Instead, their ability to create wealth can be a path out of poverty. As the metaphysics illustrated in What the Bleep or the laws of attraction defined in The Secret show, what we see is what we create. The ability to create wealth (not only financially, but wealth of love, happiness, health and spirit) is available to every person on the planet.

How do we move from some embodying this knowledge to all embodying it? Giving aid only facilitates the imbalance of wealth and power around the world. We must empower the disempowered with tools to create the world they desire. The world won’t become truly wealthy until each of us finds wealth within ourselves. Then perhaps the statement becomes: “Really, really rich people — there are not enough out there for our own good.”
—Matt Omo, via email

I have now read each page of the February 2008 edition. Fabulous work here — a prizewinner! I highly commend your writers, and your essay is so good, I am making copies to share with other readers. Keep it up; I can foresee awards won from your industry for such high quality reportage.
—Gary M. Gorlick, MD, Beverly Hills, CA

Let’s Talk About (Safe) Sex

After going through the February lovers’ issue, with the story on polyamory: Unless I overlooked it, I didn’t see any concern for safety. I know this is an upscale magazine for the politically aware; at the same time, I wonder, how aware are we? It seems like a comprehensive article on condoms would have fit in nicely. There’s also the concern of spreading disease. Is your new partner really aware of any “souvenirs” that may be passed along? With the above being mentioned, please do not think that I am speaking out against polyamory. Have Fun!
— Name withheld, Renton, WA

Love is Made For Me and You

Regarding your article on relationships including more than one partner:

I bare no judgment against polyamorists. But you can only achieve a love beyond your wildest and deepest aspirations with one other person.

If your love is true, there is no need, nor place, for another. You are already “three entities” or better, (as the “polyglossary” put it) a “triad.” You, the other person, and the third entity: your bond. You have your individualism, they have theirs, and the third is almost like a separate soul formed out of your love for each other.

Adding another human diminishes your bond. You can’t completely share and give all of yourself — all of your pain, joy, dreams, desires, passions, demons — to two other people.

The hurt, jealousy, fights, break up’s, murder and even suicide that come out of these situations are not merely the result of programming or religious upbringing. They happen because of the “Universal Law” governing the unity experienced between two people in love.

Thank you for your great magazine. I love the covers and it’s a bright shining light at any newsstand.
— Gavern, via email

Pet-Friendly House Plants

I wanted to comment on an article I read in the January issue about clearing the air. I enjoyed the tips, but I noticed that in recommending plants like peace lilies, there was no mention about the danger to our furry friends. The SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) has this plant listed as “highly toxic” to pets. I don’t know about the others listed but you might want to remind readers not to bring any plant into the home without checking with the SPCA first.
— Melissa, via email

Another Mouthful on SIGG

Last month, a reader wrote in “disheartened” by our inclusion of SIGG water bottles as a safe plastic-free alternative in “Portable Potables” (Dec. 2007). “SIGG bottles have an aluminum exterior, with a baked-on interior liner,” wrote Erika Herman. “Read the report on SIGG.com’s website; it’s VERY selective about which chemicals don’t end up in your drink. There is a possibility that undetectable levels of liner-chemicals leach into liquids stored in these containers.” Well, Erika, SIGG headquarters was paying attention:

SIGG Switzerland is completely committed to delivering a premium quality product which is not only eco-friendly but also 100 percent safe. In the 100 years SIGG has been in business, the bottle liner we have used has evolved and improved over time. We sincerely believe that our current SIGG liner is the best in the world because it is totally inert and imparts absolutely no chemicals into the beverage. SIGG has proprietary rights with a 3rd party producer of our liner formula. In other words, we do not produce it ourselves. This supplier is based in Switzerland and has an impeccable reputation for quality and safety. SIGG is the only water bottle on the market to use this special liner. As there are many copycat manufacturers in the market (most based in China) that would like to get their hands on this formula, our supplier has an agreement with SIGG to keep his formula confidential. Because we know this liner is the very best on the market and we would like to continue working with this supplier, we have honored that agreement.

More important than the formula of the liner is the performance of the liner. Very thorough migration tests in laboratories around the world have consistently shown SIGG bottles to have no presence of phthalates, Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Bysphenol A (BPA), Bysphenol B (BPB) or any other chemical which scientists have deemed potentially harmful. For example, last summer SIGG bottles were tested for BPA versus the competition at Alliance Technologies, one of the finest laboratories in America. Under harsh conditions to simulate time and use, the results were as follows: Polycarbonate #7 plastic bottles: 71 ppb (parts per billion) were leached into the water. Chinese-made aluminum water bottles: 19 ppb. New SIGG bottles: no detectable BPA. Used SIGG bottles (2 years old): no detectable BPA.

Despite scientific evidence that SIGG bottles are 100 percent safe, I understand the desire of some people to know exactly what the proprietary SIGG liner is made of and I promise to raise this issue with management in Switzerland.
—Steve Wasik, President, SIGG USA

Emotional Spelunker Seeks Same

I applaud Ms Ephraim, writer of February’s essay “Making Love out of Nothing at All.” Getting her significant other to attend a couples’ workshop is a feat in itself, demonstrating both individuals’ commitment toward that third entity: The Relationship. As a young, fairly urban, single female, I have found modern male “sensitivity” to be a bunch of horse crap. The stereotypical male is still alive and well, even in our time of evolved consciousness. I would like to know where Ms Ephraim found the beacon for her partner’s “emotional spelunking.” I cannot even find a guy with fresh batteries in his flashlight!
— Courtney Schlesinger, Chicago

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: