19 juillet 2006
18 juillet 2006
Politics: The colonisation of Gaza and abuse of power by Israel
In the meantime, Israel continues to attack and abuse its power in the Palestinian territories. This is what many call "state terrorism" by a so-called democratic state, against several UN resolutions and against international opinion. The truth is that Israel has been intervening outside its territory against international conventions, in a third country, killing civilians and whoever stands in the way of their bullits. The world has been watching quietly. And the situation and everyday life in the Palestinian territory has been deteriorating more and more. Now there are the attacks in Lebanon, many times against civilian targets and public infrastructure. Lebanon is an independent third state. But who cares? With the support of the US all ispossible. Yet the west shouldn't be surprised when more and more people, many times coming from within western states (and even from the US as has been reported recently), are joining guerrillas and terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and others, to fight against the US and the western "occupation".
Here some quotations from a rather lengthy list of UN humanitarian agencies working on the ground in Gaza:
"The Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip constitute collective punishment of the entire Gazan population, and have created a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions in Gaza."
"All these attacks violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which sets out the obligations of occupying powers and specifically prohibits collective punishments, "targeted" assassinations, and destruction of the infrastructure of an occupied territory."
"Israel's assault on Gaza does not constitute a re-occupation, because Israel's occupation of Gaza never ended."
"The expansion of the military escalation to Lebanon represents a serious threat of escalation, especially if there is involvement from Syria, as well as threatening to divert international attention from the continuing crisis in Gaza."
"The ongoing Gaza crisis is political, not just humanitarian. It reflects the failure of Israeli unilateralism, the failure of the "Roadmap," the failure of the U.S.-orchestrated exclusion of the UN, and failure of the international community and the UN to intervene."
"The Gaza escalation demonstrates once again the need for an entirely new, international (not U.S.-sponsored) diplomatic process based on international law and human rights, aimed at ending the occupation and establishing equal rights for all, the only basis for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region."
Here some quotations from a rather lengthy list of UN humanitarian agencies working on the ground in Gaza:
"The Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip constitute collective punishment of the entire Gazan population, and have created a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions in Gaza."
"All these attacks violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which sets out the obligations of occupying powers and specifically prohibits collective punishments, "targeted" assassinations, and destruction of the infrastructure of an occupied territory."
"Israel's assault on Gaza does not constitute a re-occupation, because Israel's occupation of Gaza never ended."
"The expansion of the military escalation to Lebanon represents a serious threat of escalation, especially if there is involvement from Syria, as well as threatening to divert international attention from the continuing crisis in Gaza."
"The ongoing Gaza crisis is political, not just humanitarian. It reflects the failure of Israeli unilateralism, the failure of the "Roadmap," the failure of the U.S.-orchestrated exclusion of the UN, and failure of the international community and the UN to intervene."
"The Gaza escalation demonstrates once again the need for an entirely new, international (not U.S.-sponsored) diplomatic process based on international law and human rights, aimed at ending the occupation and establishing equal rights for all, the only basis for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region."
Politics: "The Middle East Aflame and the Bush Administration Adrift"
In an interesting article in Zmag/Znet, on "The Middle East Aflame and the Bush Administration Adrift", Tom Engelhardt writes an interesting essay on the fundamentalist path to the use of force by the US Administration and Israel, as one of the causes of the present chaos situation in the Middle East.
Here some excerpts:
"As a man who is no fan of fundamentalists of any sort, let me offer a proposition that might make some modest sense of our reeling planet. Consider the possibility that the most fundamental belief, perhaps in all of history, but specifically in these last catastrophic years, seems to be in the efficacy of force -- and the more of it the merrier. That deep belief in force above all else is perhaps the monotheism of monotheisms, a faith remarkably accepting of adherents of any other imaginable faith -- or of no other faith at all. Like many fundamentalist faiths, it is also resistant to drawing any reasonable lessons from actual experience on this planet.
The Bush administration came to power as a fundamentalist regime; and here I'm not referring to the Christian fundamentalist faith of our President. After all, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and our Vice President seem not to be Christian fundamentalists any more than were Paul Wolfowitz or Douglas Feith. (…). They were convinced that with such force (and forces), they could reshape the world in just about any way they wanted to fit their visionary desires.(…)
And then, of course, came 9/11, the "Pearl Harbor" of this century. Suddenly, they had a divine wind at their back, a terrified populace before them ready to be led, and everything they believed in seemed just so... well, possible. It was, in faith-based terms, a godsend. Not surprisingly, they promptly began to prepare to act in the stead of an imperially angry god and to bring the world -- particularly its energy heartlands -- to heel. (…) They could put
their plan into practice -- with a confidence and lack of planning for any alternative possibilities or realities that was typical of true believers. And so, on March 20, 2003, they loosed their cruise-missile-styled lightning bolts on Baghdad because they knew one thing -- that the force was with them and that, because the United States was the military superpower of all superpowers in all of history, it was theirs alone... (…)
Now, let's jump a few familiar years ahead (…), to July 16, 2006. In the process, let's also take a little spin through our "empire lite" that vaunted New Rome, that Pax Americana as it's developed since the Bush administration decided to "take the gloves off," and apply its power fully and brutally from Iraq to Guantanamo. In fact, let's do a fly-by of what the neocons' once called "the arc of instability" three years later: In Afghanistan, as an ABC network news journalist touring American bases reported the other night, American officers are begging for more troops. (The Brits, just taking over in the south, are already desperately sending them in!) (…) In the former flypaper-land of Iraq, the Bush administration's application of full-frontal force has, by now, released every two-bit sectarian thug, death-squad killer, jihadi fanatic, and angry rebel onto the streets of the capital, Baghdad -- where perhaps a fifth or more of the country's population lives -- armed to the teeth and ready to maim, mutilate, torture, and kill. (…)
Meanwhile, as no one could have missed by now, the Mediterranean edge of the Middle East is teetering at the edge of full-scale war, behind which lurks the threat of an even wider regional war of some previously almost unimaginable sort. There, too, the recourse to arms has overwhelmed any other possible option. Hamas guerrillas broke into Israel, killed two soldiers and captured another. They certainly must have had a sense of what the Israeli reaction to such a raid might be; but for the sake of argument, let's say they didn't. (…) In the meantime, at the Lebanese border with Israel, the guerrillas of the Hezbollah movement watched the Israelis mercilessly take out a power plant, government offices, and various other infrastructural targets in Gaza, while killing civilians and hammering urban areas as a "response" to the capture of their soldier. Hezbollah then launched their own incursion into Israel, killing several soldiers and capturing two more. With the example of Gaza in front of them, they had to know just exactly what the Olmert government would do to the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon itself -- and clearly it made no difference. As for the Israelis, at this point they visibly feel free of all outside restraint or constraint, given the Bush administration, and so can bomb, blockade, missile, and attack almost at will -- and, with their eyes on Syria and Iran, are threatening to widen this war yet further, setting the region ablaze.
As in the slums of Baghdad, so too in Gaza, Lebanon, and possibly elsewhere, the urge is to settle historic grudges via shock-and-awe tactics. And yet, as Rami Khouri has written recently, the Israelis are "in the bizarre position of repeating policies that have consistently failed for the past 40 years." The last time this happened, the Israelis made it all the way to Beirut and ended up stuck in Lebanon for 18 years before withdrawing ignominiously. In the process, they helped midwife the Hezbollah movement and give it luster, a reputation, and strength."
According to Uri Avnery, however, who wrote another article in Zmag:
"the real aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government. That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political leadership have never really given up on it. As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the US. As then, there is no doubt that it is coordinated with a part of the Lebanese elite. That's the main thing. Everything else is noise and propaganda. ON THE eve of the 1982 invasion, Secretary of State Alexander Haig told Ariel Sharon that, before starting it, it was necessary to have a "clear provocation", which would be accepted by the world. The provocation indeed took place - exactly at the appropriate time - when Abu-Nidal's terror gang tried to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in London. This had no connection with Lebanon, and even less with the PLO (the enemy of Abu-Nidal), but it served its purpose. This time, the necessary provocation has been provided by the capture of the two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah. Everyone knows that they cannot be freed except through an exchange of prisoners. But the huge military campaign that has been ready to go for months was sold to the Israeli and international public as a rescue operation."
Here some excerpts:
"As a man who is no fan of fundamentalists of any sort, let me offer a proposition that might make some modest sense of our reeling planet. Consider the possibility that the most fundamental belief, perhaps in all of history, but specifically in these last catastrophic years, seems to be in the efficacy of force -- and the more of it the merrier. That deep belief in force above all else is perhaps the monotheism of monotheisms, a faith remarkably accepting of adherents of any other imaginable faith -- or of no other faith at all. Like many fundamentalist faiths, it is also resistant to drawing any reasonable lessons from actual experience on this planet.
The Bush administration came to power as a fundamentalist regime; and here I'm not referring to the Christian fundamentalist faith of our President. After all, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and our Vice President seem not to be Christian fundamentalists any more than were Paul Wolfowitz or Douglas Feith. (…). They were convinced that with such force (and forces), they could reshape the world in just about any way they wanted to fit their visionary desires.(…)
And then, of course, came 9/11, the "Pearl Harbor" of this century. Suddenly, they had a divine wind at their back, a terrified populace before them ready to be led, and everything they believed in seemed just so... well, possible. It was, in faith-based terms, a godsend. Not surprisingly, they promptly began to prepare to act in the stead of an imperially angry god and to bring the world -- particularly its energy heartlands -- to heel. (…) They could put
their plan into practice -- with a confidence and lack of planning for any alternative possibilities or realities that was typical of true believers. And so, on March 20, 2003, they loosed their cruise-missile-styled lightning bolts on Baghdad because they knew one thing -- that the force was with them and that, because the United States was the military superpower of all superpowers in all of history, it was theirs alone... (…)
Now, let's jump a few familiar years ahead (…), to July 16, 2006. In the process, let's also take a little spin through our "empire lite" that vaunted New Rome, that Pax Americana as it's developed since the Bush administration decided to "take the gloves off," and apply its power fully and brutally from Iraq to Guantanamo. In fact, let's do a fly-by of what the neocons' once called "the arc of instability" three years later: In Afghanistan, as an ABC network news journalist touring American bases reported the other night, American officers are begging for more troops. (The Brits, just taking over in the south, are already desperately sending them in!) (…) In the former flypaper-land of Iraq, the Bush administration's application of full-frontal force has, by now, released every two-bit sectarian thug, death-squad killer, jihadi fanatic, and angry rebel onto the streets of the capital, Baghdad -- where perhaps a fifth or more of the country's population lives -- armed to the teeth and ready to maim, mutilate, torture, and kill. (…)
Meanwhile, as no one could have missed by now, the Mediterranean edge of the Middle East is teetering at the edge of full-scale war, behind which lurks the threat of an even wider regional war of some previously almost unimaginable sort. There, too, the recourse to arms has overwhelmed any other possible option. Hamas guerrillas broke into Israel, killed two soldiers and captured another. They certainly must have had a sense of what the Israeli reaction to such a raid might be; but for the sake of argument, let's say they didn't. (…) In the meantime, at the Lebanese border with Israel, the guerrillas of the Hezbollah movement watched the Israelis mercilessly take out a power plant, government offices, and various other infrastructural targets in Gaza, while killing civilians and hammering urban areas as a "response" to the capture of their soldier. Hezbollah then launched their own incursion into Israel, killing several soldiers and capturing two more. With the example of Gaza in front of them, they had to know just exactly what the Olmert government would do to the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon itself -- and clearly it made no difference. As for the Israelis, at this point they visibly feel free of all outside restraint or constraint, given the Bush administration, and so can bomb, blockade, missile, and attack almost at will -- and, with their eyes on Syria and Iran, are threatening to widen this war yet further, setting the region ablaze.
As in the slums of Baghdad, so too in Gaza, Lebanon, and possibly elsewhere, the urge is to settle historic grudges via shock-and-awe tactics. And yet, as Rami Khouri has written recently, the Israelis are "in the bizarre position of repeating policies that have consistently failed for the past 40 years." The last time this happened, the Israelis made it all the way to Beirut and ended up stuck in Lebanon for 18 years before withdrawing ignominiously. In the process, they helped midwife the Hezbollah movement and give it luster, a reputation, and strength."
According to Uri Avnery, however, who wrote another article in Zmag:
"the real aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government. That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political leadership have never really given up on it. As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the US. As then, there is no doubt that it is coordinated with a part of the Lebanese elite. That's the main thing. Everything else is noise and propaganda. ON THE eve of the 1982 invasion, Secretary of State Alexander Haig told Ariel Sharon that, before starting it, it was necessary to have a "clear provocation", which would be accepted by the world. The provocation indeed took place - exactly at the appropriate time - when Abu-Nidal's terror gang tried to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in London. This had no connection with Lebanon, and even less with the PLO (the enemy of Abu-Nidal), but it served its purpose. This time, the necessary provocation has been provided by the capture of the two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah. Everyone knows that they cannot be freed except through an exchange of prisoners. But the huge military campaign that has been ready to go for months was sold to the Israeli and international public as a rescue operation."
Politics: Stop the war in Lebanon and Palestina
[Photo: Guardian - A volunteer searches the rubble of residential buildings hit by an Israeli air strike on the southern Lebanese city of Tyre. Photograph: Hassan Ammar/AFP/Getty Images]The death toll among Lebanese civilians and soldiers continues to rise. Today agencies in Beirut reported that Israeli airstrikes had killed 13 civilians and 11 soldiers of the Lebanese army (who are not in conflict with Israel!). The dead included a family of whose home was hit by an Israeli missile. Israel has ignored Lebanese calls for a ceasefire and has said it will not relent until the Hezbollah gives up the two soldiers it captured during a raid last week and moves away from the Israeli border. Now this does not seem to me to be a serious argument, to start a war, but apparently it is, for many western leaders, for whom it is the Hezbollah fighters who have poured "petrol on the bonfire" by kidnapping Israeli soldiers and firing rockets into Israel.
Apparently, opinion polls in Israel suggest the vast majority of Israelis approve of the government's actions in Lebanon, which is a big support for the army, who is already mobilising reservists. All those who dare speak against the war and the way the crisis is conducted are simply ignored and seen as traitors. And in the meantime Hezbollah's rockets have killed many innocent civilian in Israel. It is a never ending spiral of violence.
Now western European leaders and the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan have called for urgent action from the international community to stop the violence between Israel and Lebanon. They call for a new international force to be deployed in the border region. President Bush himself has talked about the role of Syria - in an unguarded moment at the G8 summit - when he spoke to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair without knowing that microphones were live. He said: "What they [referring probably to the UN] need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over." Bush also said that he was sending his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to the region "pretty soon", and that is already a sign of the urgency the US sees in solving the present crisis. In fact nothing is likely to happen for many days. The US will not take any step and will probably give Israel a "window" in which to carry on with its campaign and achieve its targets. Too early for a "ceasefire".
Even if unlikely, this could turn into a regional war, involving Syria and who knows Iran. These could even profit of the involvement of the US in other fronts - Afghanistan and Iraq - already, to step in and destabilise even further the Middle East. But it seems that neither the US nor the Israeli have thought of that. Or have they? Read more in the following "post".
To my understanding Europe should take a strong position against the Israel campaign and clearly not align itself with the US approach. Europe should decide on an economic embargo against Israel, boycott its exports to Europe and Europe's exports to Israel. This could contribute to isolate Israel (unlikely, with the US) and have lithe impact for the moment, but could have its medium-term results. The economic language may be the only they listen to, in order to sit at a table and try to settle for peace in the region.
Read futher in the Guardian and BBC news.
17 juillet 2006
Happiness & Sadness: Why is the suicide rate in Tahiti so high?
Why is the suicide rate in Tahiti so high?
One would think, in particular after reading the "happy planet index" study (see previous post), that people were very happy in the Pacific Islands... Well apparently it seems that it is not always the case, at least not in Tahiti. Anthropologist Robert Levy searched for an answer to the high suicide rate in Tahiti in the 1960s. After research and investigation, Mr. Levy found that there is no word or concept for sadness in the Tahitian culture. While Tahitians felt sadness, they had no word to refer to their feeling. Neither did they have a ritual to heal sadness nor a tradition of solacing sorrow. Mr. Levy concluded that because Tahitians do not have the concept of sadness, which is desperately needed in a society, their frustration was expressed in a high suicide rate. In cognitive science, such a condition is called "low cognition," meaning the absence of a frame of reference that associates a certain concept with one or two words. The frame is the fixed definition of thoughts. (...)
Read more
One would think, in particular after reading the "happy planet index" study (see previous post), that people were very happy in the Pacific Islands... Well apparently it seems that it is not always the case, at least not in Tahiti. Anthropologist Robert Levy searched for an answer to the high suicide rate in Tahiti in the 1960s. After research and investigation, Mr. Levy found that there is no word or concept for sadness in the Tahitian culture. While Tahitians felt sadness, they had no word to refer to their feeling. Neither did they have a ritual to heal sadness nor a tradition of solacing sorrow. Mr. Levy concluded that because Tahitians do not have the concept of sadness, which is desperately needed in a society, their frustration was expressed in a high suicide rate. In cognitive science, such a condition is called "low cognition," meaning the absence of a frame of reference that associates a certain concept with one or two words. The frame is the fixed definition of thoughts. (...)
Read more
15 juillet 2006
Citizenship: 19 July Day of Action against homophobic persecution in Iran
An appeal has been issued to organise worldwide demonstrations and vigils on July 19, the first anniversary of the public hanging in Iran of two gay teens, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. The initiative comes from the militant British gay rights group OutRage! and the Paris-based International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) and is supported by the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and the Swedish group Tupilak.
The execution of the two teenagers, who were hanged in the public square of the city of Mashad last year, created international outrage when the photos of the execution were widely circulated on the Internet, and focused the world’s attention on Iran’s ongoing, lethal reign of terror targeting Iranian gays.
Protests have already been scheduled for the anniversary of the teens’ execution in a number of large European cities, including London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Brussels as well as many north American cities.
The organisation OutRage! has proposed five demands for the 19 July protests. These demands, which have been endorsed by the PGLO (Iranian underground organisation for LGBT rights), are:
1. End all executions in Iran, especially the execution of minors.
2. Stop the arrest, torture and imprisonment of Iranian lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and repeal the Iranian penal code's criminalisation of same-sex relationships.
3. Halt the deportation to Iran of LGBT asylum seekers and other victims of Tehran's persecution.
4. Support Iranians struggling for democracy, social justice and human rights.
5. Oppose foreign military intervention in Iran; regime change must come from within - by and for the Iranian people themselves.
A year-long investigation conducted by the organisation OutRage into this case has revealed that the regime’s allegations against the two hanged youths, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, were full of contradictions, implausibilities and outright lies. The evidence showed that both youths were aged 17 when they were executed and therefore minors, and were aged 15 or 16 at the time of the alleged crimes. This execution of minors is in flagrant breach of international agreements the Tehran regime has signed. The Iranian authorities first claimed that they committed several rape and were child molesters. According to the investigation, local sources in Mashad informed that Mahmoud and Ayaz were lovers, not rapists or child abusers – contrary to the homophobic propaganda of the Iranian regime. Apparently the boys were charged with the capital crime of homosexuality after a disapproving family member reported their relationship to the police. Acording to Outrage, the execution of Mahmoud and Ayaz conforms to a pattern of state torture and murder of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people by the Iranian clerical regime.
The execution of the two teenagers, who were hanged in the public square of the city of Mashad last year, created international outrage when the photos of the execution were widely circulated on the Internet, and focused the world’s attention on Iran’s ongoing, lethal reign of terror targeting Iranian gays.
Protests have already been scheduled for the anniversary of the teens’ execution in a number of large European cities, including London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Brussels as well as many north American cities.
The organisation OutRage! has proposed five demands for the 19 July protests. These demands, which have been endorsed by the PGLO (Iranian underground organisation for LGBT rights), are:
1. End all executions in Iran, especially the execution of minors.
2. Stop the arrest, torture and imprisonment of Iranian lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and repeal the Iranian penal code's criminalisation of same-sex relationships.
3. Halt the deportation to Iran of LGBT asylum seekers and other victims of Tehran's persecution.
4. Support Iranians struggling for democracy, social justice and human rights.
5. Oppose foreign military intervention in Iran; regime change must come from within - by and for the Iranian people themselves.
A year-long investigation conducted by the organisation OutRage into this case has revealed that the regime’s allegations against the two hanged youths, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, were full of contradictions, implausibilities and outright lies. The evidence showed that both youths were aged 17 when they were executed and therefore minors, and were aged 15 or 16 at the time of the alleged crimes. This execution of minors is in flagrant breach of international agreements the Tehran regime has signed. The Iranian authorities first claimed that they committed several rape and were child molesters. According to the investigation, local sources in Mashad informed that Mahmoud and Ayaz were lovers, not rapists or child abusers – contrary to the homophobic propaganda of the Iranian regime. Apparently the boys were charged with the capital crime of homosexuality after a disapproving family member reported their relationship to the police. Acording to Outrage, the execution of Mahmoud and Ayaz conforms to a pattern of state torture and murder of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people by the Iranian clerical regime.
14 juillet 2006
Happiness is not a destination - Kavafis' Ithaca
The phrase by psychologist Haim Ginott, "Happiness is not a destination" has reminded me of one of C. Kavafis' poems, "Ithaca":
ITHACA - C. Kavafis
"As you set out for Ithaka
hope the voyage is long,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
angry Poseidon - don't be afraid of them:
you'll never find such things on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as wistful emotions
stir your spirit and body.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
wild Poseidon - you won't encounter them
unless they dwell your soul,
unless your soul raises them up in front of you.
Hope the voyage is a long one.
May there be many summer mornings when,
with what pleasure and joy,
you come into harbors seen for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind -
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to gather stores of wisdom from their scholars.
Keep Ithaka always in your thoughts.
Your arrival is your destiny.
But don't ever hurry the journey.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you are old by the time you reach the island,
enriched with what you have gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.
Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you would have not sailed away.
She has nothing left to give you now.
And if you find her poor, Ithaka won't have fooled you.
This way, wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you will have understood by then what these Ithakas mean. "
ITHACA - C. Kavafis
"As you set out for Ithaka
hope the voyage is long,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
angry Poseidon - don't be afraid of them:
you'll never find such things on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as wistful emotions
stir your spirit and body.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
wild Poseidon - you won't encounter them
unless they dwell your soul,
unless your soul raises them up in front of you.
Hope the voyage is a long one.
May there be many summer mornings when,
with what pleasure and joy,
you come into harbors seen for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind -
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to gather stores of wisdom from their scholars.
Keep Ithaka always in your thoughts.
Your arrival is your destiny.
But don't ever hurry the journey.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you are old by the time you reach the island,
enriched with what you have gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.
Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you would have not sailed away.
She has nothing left to give you now.
And if you find her poor, Ithaka won't have fooled you.
This way, wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you will have understood by then what these Ithakas mean. "
13 juillet 2006
Citizenship: what is happiness?
According to a new "happy planet index" study, published by the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the island nation of Vanuatu (archipelago of 83 islands in the western Pacific) is the happiest place on earth. But, beside the palm trees and beaches, why is life so good there?
Renowned psychologist Haim Ginott, apparently once said: "Happiness is not a destination." Well, according to the BBC, it is now, so get to your keyboard and book a one-way ticket to Vanuatu. Or not? In the meantime, Colombia is the second happiest place, Cuba comes in number six and the UK languishes in 108th place, below Libya, Iran, and Palestine! And Portugal comes only in 135th place, just after Guinea-Bissau. Belgium is 78, France 128, Spain 87 and Germany 81. Hard to believe? Yes.
Going back to Vanuatu, it’s easy to work out what the island nation has going for it - the weather is good most of the year, it has paradise-style coastlines and beaches, unique rainforests and no income tax. However, it is far from paradise lost, with limited employment opportunities and poverty. It is also not the environmental paradise one might expect, since climatic changes and rising sea levels threaten some islands, forcing many inhabitants to move inland. Annica Parilongi, financial controller at the island nation's only telecoms company - Telecom Vanuatu Limited – says "It's not perfect, it is a third-world country”. And even if it is poor, there is no hunger. But (and this changes all) "if you don't have money in Vanuatu you can still live happily. Here you can grow everything you need to eat. If people have an opportunity to make money they will take it, but it is not their ultimate aim." And people share a relaxed attitude to everyday life.
Of course if you need culture, entertainment, cinemas, shopping and all the services and amenities of modern life, you can’t be happy there. However, the "happy planet index" builds on a particular definition of happiness, which - among other things - measures people's impact on the environment. The HPI incorporates three separate indicators: ecological footprint, life-satisfaction and life expectancy. The statistical calculations that underlie the HPI are quite complex – see their site. The index reflects the average years of happy life produced by a given society, nation or group of nations, per unit of planetary resources consumed. Put another way, it aims to represent the efficiency with which countries convert the earth’s finite resources into well-being experienced by their citizens. Not an easy task, let’s admit…
“Island nations score well above average in the Index: they have higher life satisfaction, higher life expectancy and marginally lower Footprints than other states. Yet incomes (by GDP per capita) are roughly equal to the world average. Even within regions, islands do well. Malta tops the Western world (40th place overall, yet after Morocco) with Cyprus in seventh place (out of 24); the top five HPI nations in Africa are all islands; as well as two of the top four in Asia. Perhaps a more acute awareness of environmental limits has sometimes helped their societies to bond better and to adapt to get more from less. Combined with the enhanced well-being that stems from close contact with nature, the world as a whole stands to learn much from the experience of islands.”
As is written in the site, “We are accustomed to comparing countires in terms of crude riches or what they trade. Some countries earn, or are given, reputations for music, sporting excellence, food, or as holiday destinations. There are international league tables for performance on a range of issues from corruption to football. This website introduces a measure of something more fundamental. It addresses the relative success or failure of countries in supporting good life for their citizens, whilst repecting the environmental resource limits upon which our lives depend. The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an innovative new measure that shows the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered. “.
The question is whether this all makes any sense? I believe it is only relative. I believe it is difficult to measure happiness in a place where you do not have freedom, or security, or food. Of course it is possible to live long, happy lives with a much smaller environmental impact: for example, in the United States and Germany people’s sense of life satisfaction is almost identical and life expectancy is broadly similar. Yet Germany’s Ecological Ecological footprint is only about half that of the USA. This means that Germany is around twice as efficient as the USA at generating happy long lives based on the resources that they consume. But how to explain that people in Iran and Palestine, for instance, are happier than the UK? In Iran there is no freedom, women are dominated, in Palestina there is no security, no hope. And what about Colombia in 2nd place? Even if may not be the terrible place the media painted for us, with the guerrilla, kidnapping, drugs cartels, etc, it is impossible that it could stand in number 2 (seen the picture "La Virgen de los sicarios"?).
It seems that sometimes it's not about happiness, rather about lack of opportunity, which in turn leads to low expectations and thus contentment. As a conclusion, interesting approach, at least it makes one think about sustainability and happiness, but it certainly needs rethinking and integrating other factors.
Renowned psychologist Haim Ginott, apparently once said: "Happiness is not a destination." Well, according to the BBC, it is now, so get to your keyboard and book a one-way ticket to Vanuatu. Or not? In the meantime, Colombia is the second happiest place, Cuba comes in number six and the UK languishes in 108th place, below Libya, Iran, and Palestine! And Portugal comes only in 135th place, just after Guinea-Bissau. Belgium is 78, France 128, Spain 87 and Germany 81. Hard to believe? Yes.
Going back to Vanuatu, it’s easy to work out what the island nation has going for it - the weather is good most of the year, it has paradise-style coastlines and beaches, unique rainforests and no income tax. However, it is far from paradise lost, with limited employment opportunities and poverty. It is also not the environmental paradise one might expect, since climatic changes and rising sea levels threaten some islands, forcing many inhabitants to move inland. Annica Parilongi, financial controller at the island nation's only telecoms company - Telecom Vanuatu Limited – says "It's not perfect, it is a third-world country”. And even if it is poor, there is no hunger. But (and this changes all) "if you don't have money in Vanuatu you can still live happily. Here you can grow everything you need to eat. If people have an opportunity to make money they will take it, but it is not their ultimate aim." And people share a relaxed attitude to everyday life.
Of course if you need culture, entertainment, cinemas, shopping and all the services and amenities of modern life, you can’t be happy there. However, the "happy planet index" builds on a particular definition of happiness, which - among other things - measures people's impact on the environment. The HPI incorporates three separate indicators: ecological footprint, life-satisfaction and life expectancy. The statistical calculations that underlie the HPI are quite complex – see their site. The index reflects the average years of happy life produced by a given society, nation or group of nations, per unit of planetary resources consumed. Put another way, it aims to represent the efficiency with which countries convert the earth’s finite resources into well-being experienced by their citizens. Not an easy task, let’s admit…
“Island nations score well above average in the Index: they have higher life satisfaction, higher life expectancy and marginally lower Footprints than other states. Yet incomes (by GDP per capita) are roughly equal to the world average. Even within regions, islands do well. Malta tops the Western world (40th place overall, yet after Morocco) with Cyprus in seventh place (out of 24); the top five HPI nations in Africa are all islands; as well as two of the top four in Asia. Perhaps a more acute awareness of environmental limits has sometimes helped their societies to bond better and to adapt to get more from less. Combined with the enhanced well-being that stems from close contact with nature, the world as a whole stands to learn much from the experience of islands.”
As is written in the site, “We are accustomed to comparing countires in terms of crude riches or what they trade. Some countries earn, or are given, reputations for music, sporting excellence, food, or as holiday destinations. There are international league tables for performance on a range of issues from corruption to football. This website introduces a measure of something more fundamental. It addresses the relative success or failure of countries in supporting good life for their citizens, whilst repecting the environmental resource limits upon which our lives depend. The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an innovative new measure that shows the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered. “.
The question is whether this all makes any sense? I believe it is only relative. I believe it is difficult to measure happiness in a place where you do not have freedom, or security, or food. Of course it is possible to live long, happy lives with a much smaller environmental impact: for example, in the United States and Germany people’s sense of life satisfaction is almost identical and life expectancy is broadly similar. Yet Germany’s Ecological Ecological footprint is only about half that of the USA. This means that Germany is around twice as efficient as the USA at generating happy long lives based on the resources that they consume. But how to explain that people in Iran and Palestine, for instance, are happier than the UK? In Iran there is no freedom, women are dominated, in Palestina there is no security, no hope. And what about Colombia in 2nd place? Even if may not be the terrible place the media painted for us, with the guerrilla, kidnapping, drugs cartels, etc, it is impossible that it could stand in number 2 (seen the picture "La Virgen de los sicarios"?).
It seems that sometimes it's not about happiness, rather about lack of opportunity, which in turn leads to low expectations and thus contentment. As a conclusion, interesting approach, at least it makes one think about sustainability and happiness, but it certainly needs rethinking and integrating other factors.
Cidadania: a água, petróleo do futuro?
Portugal é o país do Mediterrâneo que mais água consome anualmente, com 1.212 metros cúbicos por habitante, revela um relatório do Fundo Mundial para a Natureza (WWF) hoje divulgado.
De acordo com o estudo do WWF, depois de Portugal é Espanha que mais consome água (870 metros cúbicos por habitante), seguindo-se Itália (772), Grécia (708), França (667) e Turquia (534). Enquanto os países do Mediterrâneo tiveram uma redução de 20% na precipitação, o consumo de água duplicou, nos últimos 50 anos. A extrapolação das tendências actuais mostra uma redução contínua das precipitações e um aumento do consumo de água de 25% até 2025, nas margens orientais e meridionais do Mediterrâneo, principalmente no Egipto, na Turquia e na Síria. A organização WWF adverte igualmente que «secas mais frequentes e mais prejudiciais» serão prováveis no Mediterrâneo, onde podem tornar-se «crónicas».
O WWF adverte que a cultura de regadio é a principal responsável pela falta de água em Portugal e nos restantes países do Mediterrâneo. O estudo indica que a área destinada à agricultura de regadio no Mediterrâneo duplicou nos últimos 40 anos e absorve cerca de 65% do total da água consumida nesses países. Em Espanha por ejemplo, entre 1989 e 1999 criaram-se 800.000 ha de regadio (um aumento de 31,7% em 10 anos), correspondentes a uma superfície como a da Comunidade de Madrid.
O estudo WWF/Adena pede uma mudança radical nas políticas nacionais e da União Europeia, que influenciam a utilização da água pois, sem uma reorientação das mesmas, a situação das populações e do meio ambiente tenderá a pirorar.
Segundo o estudo, as subvenções da UE e dos governos nacionais estimularam o abandono ou a transformação em regadio das culturas de sequeiro, convertendo culturas antes não regadas, como a vinha e o olival, nos maiores consumidores de água de bacias como o Alto Guadiana ou o Guadalquivir. As políticas agrárias terão também favorecido o crescimento de outras culturas de regadio, consumidoras de grandes quantidades de água. Nos países fora da UE, o consumo de água na agricultura é ainda mais elevado, devido à utilização de métodos de rega ineficazes.
E em Portugal, não falemos do turismo e dos campos de golfe (um campo de golfe pode consumir mais água do que uma vila de 1500 habitantes).
Estranho é de assinalar que, no site do WWF, não existe nenhum site específico para Portugal. Mais um sinal do fraco espírito associativo e de participação política e social dos portugueses? Talvez. Seria interessante ver qual o grau de participação por exemplo em organizações não governamentais como Amnesty International ou Greenpeace.
Cidadania: Aeroporto e TGV em Portugal
Os grandes investimentos em infraestruturas em Portugal (1)
Primeiro o aeroporto da Ota, Depois o TGV Lisboa-Porto, depois o TGV Lisboa-Madrid e o TGV Porto-Vigo.
Parece que o governo português estabeleceu como prioridades a incluir no seu Quadro nacional de referência estratégico, para os Fundos estruturais da União europeia no período 2007-2013, os TGV Lisboa-Porto e Lisboa-Madrid, assim como o novo aeroporto da Ota. E apenas mais tarde a ligação Porto-Vigo. Será tudo isto possível, será tudo isto viável? Será tudo isto rentável?
Comecemos pelo aeroporto da Ota. Para mim é ponto assente, básico e irrefutável que Lisboa necessita de um novo aeroporto e que o aeroporto da Portela não pode continuar. As razões são múltiplas, desde segurança, poluição (ar e sonora), limite de capacidade. É assim necessário identificar qual a melhor localização para um novo aeroporto que garanta uma acessibilidade razoável ao centro de Lisboa (30 minutos no máximo), condições de segurança e técnicas a nível da aeronáutica, condições para poder constituir-se um centro de actividades logísticas e para localização das actividades terrestres necessárias, inter-conexão a outros sistemas de transporte, terrestres e ferroviários. E capacidade de expansão que garanta um horizonte de vida suficientemente longo que permita rentabilizar o investimento. Porque um grande aeroporto não se pode construir cada 25 anos. Parece que o governo actual optou pela OTA. Mas a questão é de saber se essa decisão foi tomada com base em estudos de impacto ambiental e territorial, em análises custo-benefício, em estudos aeronáuticos e outros. Segundo a informação de que disponho, não. Por isso, mesmo se de um ponto de vista de localização, me pareça preferível um aeroporto localizado a norte de Lisboa do que a sul, a escolha da Ota é de aceitar com muitas reservas. Nós sabemos que vai ser um investimento privado. Mas sê-lo-á na realidade? Quando o que se pretende é privatizar os aeroportos (ou seja “vendê-los”) para que esses investidores invistam nas novas infraestruturas aeroportuárias, é preciso saber por quanto se vende e como esse processo se faz.
Depois, a escolha do aeroporto não pode deixar de ser feita independentemente das decisões sobre as ligações TGV, nem independentemente de uma estratégia para um sistema aeroportuário português. Mas neste país tem-se tendência a investir primeiro e planificar depois! Não se podem esquecer os investimentos que foram feitos no aeroporto do Porto, por exemplo. A ligação de TGV de Lisboa para o Porto deve ser também planificada ao mesmo tempo para que o TGV possa parar no aeroporto. Em todo o caso, se tal não acontecer, o que seria grave, o aeroporto deve ter uma ligação em trem rápido ou de metro de superfície ao centro de Lisboa (como por exemplo em Arlanda na Suécia ou no novo aeroporto de Oslo) que não demore mais do que 30 minutos.
Mas entretanto, estão previstos mais de 300 milhões de investimento no actual aeroporto da Portela, para poder “manter” um nível mínimo de serviço, tendo em conta o grande aumento da actividade. Alguém não fez o seu trabalho no devido momento (ministros, secretários de estado, etc) e agora tudo está atrasado e mais uma vez as coisas não foram feitas na devida altura. Mas alguém é responsabilizado por isso? Não, em Portugal nunca. Além disso, foi decidido prolongar a linha de metro desde a estação do Oriente até ao aeroporto, parece que com fundos do Fundo de Coesão europeu. Deveria chegar antes de 2010, mas entretanto não se sabe o que irá acontecer com a Portela. Terá sido uma decisão acertada? Tenho as minhas dúvidas.
Em segundo lugar os TGVs. Primeiro gastaram-se milhões de euros para melhorar a linha do norte, para tornar a ligação de tipo pendular, com velocidades da ordem dos 200 km/h que deveria permitir fazer a ligação Porto-Lisboa em 2 horas, mais ou menos. Bom investimento? Parece que não, porque agora se chegou finalmente à conclusão de que se deve construir uma linha de TGV, que terá de ser um traçado novo, para atingir velocidades da ordem dos 350 km/h. Mas será rentável? Embora haja algumas vozes cépticas, eu penso que poderá sê-lo, pois não será difícil alcançar umas 15 ligações diárias. E depois há tráfegos gerados a partir de Lisboa e Porto e mesmo em estações intermédias. Mas é conveniente indicar que os grandes investimentos em infraestrutura fixa (completamente nova) e material rolante apenas são rentáveis para elevados volumes de tráfego. Já em relação à ligação Lisboa-Madrid, a situação é menos clara. Eu não consigo antever 15 ligações diárias, de composições cheias, entre Madrid e Lisboa. Mas será necessário efectuar uma análise custo-benefício correcta e partindo de estimativas razoáveis. Mas se a rentabilidade for duvidosa, poderá invocar-se o argumento político – Portugal e Espanha querem uma ligação TGV e Portugal quer estar ligado às grandes redes transeuropeias. E assumi-la. Finalmente a ligação Porto-Vigo. Independentemente de parecer ser uma prioridade para a Galiza e para o norte de Portugal, tem a vantagem de poder potenciar o papel do aeroporto de Pedras Rubras como grande aeroporto internacional do noroeste peninsular (Lisboa seria intercontinental), supondo que o tal TGV tenha paragem no aeroporto, antes de alcançar o centro do Porto!
Mas há que ter em conta as redes transeuropeias e os grandes projectos prioritários europeus. Algumas destas ligações inserem-se numa vasta ligação multimodal Portugal-Espanha e nada é claro. Os traçados não estão estabelecidos e são puramente esquemáticos.
O importante é que estas decisões sejam tomadas seguindo uma abordagem estratégica e que haja uma planificação integrada, complementada com os necessários estudos de impacto, ambiental e territorial. E análises de custo-benefício. O país não se pode permitir jogar dinheiro fora, muito menos no próximo período dos fundos estruturais. Quem sabe se haverá mais fundos para além de 2013? Os políticos têm uma grande responsabilidade em tomar as decisões optimas e mais justas. Em conhecimento de causa. E o contribuinte tem o direito de o exigir. E de exigir transparência e contas - a tal 'accountability' inglesa.
Primeiro o aeroporto da Ota, Depois o TGV Lisboa-Porto, depois o TGV Lisboa-Madrid e o TGV Porto-Vigo.
Parece que o governo português estabeleceu como prioridades a incluir no seu Quadro nacional de referência estratégico, para os Fundos estruturais da União europeia no período 2007-2013, os TGV Lisboa-Porto e Lisboa-Madrid, assim como o novo aeroporto da Ota. E apenas mais tarde a ligação Porto-Vigo. Será tudo isto possível, será tudo isto viável? Será tudo isto rentável?
Comecemos pelo aeroporto da Ota. Para mim é ponto assente, básico e irrefutável que Lisboa necessita de um novo aeroporto e que o aeroporto da Portela não pode continuar. As razões são múltiplas, desde segurança, poluição (ar e sonora), limite de capacidade. É assim necessário identificar qual a melhor localização para um novo aeroporto que garanta uma acessibilidade razoável ao centro de Lisboa (30 minutos no máximo), condições de segurança e técnicas a nível da aeronáutica, condições para poder constituir-se um centro de actividades logísticas e para localização das actividades terrestres necessárias, inter-conexão a outros sistemas de transporte, terrestres e ferroviários. E capacidade de expansão que garanta um horizonte de vida suficientemente longo que permita rentabilizar o investimento. Porque um grande aeroporto não se pode construir cada 25 anos. Parece que o governo actual optou pela OTA. Mas a questão é de saber se essa decisão foi tomada com base em estudos de impacto ambiental e territorial, em análises custo-benefício, em estudos aeronáuticos e outros. Segundo a informação de que disponho, não. Por isso, mesmo se de um ponto de vista de localização, me pareça preferível um aeroporto localizado a norte de Lisboa do que a sul, a escolha da Ota é de aceitar com muitas reservas. Nós sabemos que vai ser um investimento privado. Mas sê-lo-á na realidade? Quando o que se pretende é privatizar os aeroportos (ou seja “vendê-los”) para que esses investidores invistam nas novas infraestruturas aeroportuárias, é preciso saber por quanto se vende e como esse processo se faz.
Depois, a escolha do aeroporto não pode deixar de ser feita independentemente das decisões sobre as ligações TGV, nem independentemente de uma estratégia para um sistema aeroportuário português. Mas neste país tem-se tendência a investir primeiro e planificar depois! Não se podem esquecer os investimentos que foram feitos no aeroporto do Porto, por exemplo. A ligação de TGV de Lisboa para o Porto deve ser também planificada ao mesmo tempo para que o TGV possa parar no aeroporto. Em todo o caso, se tal não acontecer, o que seria grave, o aeroporto deve ter uma ligação em trem rápido ou de metro de superfície ao centro de Lisboa (como por exemplo em Arlanda na Suécia ou no novo aeroporto de Oslo) que não demore mais do que 30 minutos.
Mas entretanto, estão previstos mais de 300 milhões de investimento no actual aeroporto da Portela, para poder “manter” um nível mínimo de serviço, tendo em conta o grande aumento da actividade. Alguém não fez o seu trabalho no devido momento (ministros, secretários de estado, etc) e agora tudo está atrasado e mais uma vez as coisas não foram feitas na devida altura. Mas alguém é responsabilizado por isso? Não, em Portugal nunca. Além disso, foi decidido prolongar a linha de metro desde a estação do Oriente até ao aeroporto, parece que com fundos do Fundo de Coesão europeu. Deveria chegar antes de 2010, mas entretanto não se sabe o que irá acontecer com a Portela. Terá sido uma decisão acertada? Tenho as minhas dúvidas.
Em segundo lugar os TGVs. Primeiro gastaram-se milhões de euros para melhorar a linha do norte, para tornar a ligação de tipo pendular, com velocidades da ordem dos 200 km/h que deveria permitir fazer a ligação Porto-Lisboa em 2 horas, mais ou menos. Bom investimento? Parece que não, porque agora se chegou finalmente à conclusão de que se deve construir uma linha de TGV, que terá de ser um traçado novo, para atingir velocidades da ordem dos 350 km/h. Mas será rentável? Embora haja algumas vozes cépticas, eu penso que poderá sê-lo, pois não será difícil alcançar umas 15 ligações diárias. E depois há tráfegos gerados a partir de Lisboa e Porto e mesmo em estações intermédias. Mas é conveniente indicar que os grandes investimentos em infraestrutura fixa (completamente nova) e material rolante apenas são rentáveis para elevados volumes de tráfego. Já em relação à ligação Lisboa-Madrid, a situação é menos clara. Eu não consigo antever 15 ligações diárias, de composições cheias, entre Madrid e Lisboa. Mas será necessário efectuar uma análise custo-benefício correcta e partindo de estimativas razoáveis. Mas se a rentabilidade for duvidosa, poderá invocar-se o argumento político – Portugal e Espanha querem uma ligação TGV e Portugal quer estar ligado às grandes redes transeuropeias. E assumi-la. Finalmente a ligação Porto-Vigo. Independentemente de parecer ser uma prioridade para a Galiza e para o norte de Portugal, tem a vantagem de poder potenciar o papel do aeroporto de Pedras Rubras como grande aeroporto internacional do noroeste peninsular (Lisboa seria intercontinental), supondo que o tal TGV tenha paragem no aeroporto, antes de alcançar o centro do Porto!
Mas há que ter em conta as redes transeuropeias e os grandes projectos prioritários europeus. Algumas destas ligações inserem-se numa vasta ligação multimodal Portugal-Espanha e nada é claro. Os traçados não estão estabelecidos e são puramente esquemáticos.
O importante é que estas decisões sejam tomadas seguindo uma abordagem estratégica e que haja uma planificação integrada, complementada com os necessários estudos de impacto, ambiental e territorial. E análises de custo-benefício. O país não se pode permitir jogar dinheiro fora, muito menos no próximo período dos fundos estruturais. Quem sabe se haverá mais fundos para além de 2013? Os políticos têm uma grande responsabilidade em tomar as decisões optimas e mais justas. Em conhecimento de causa. E o contribuinte tem o direito de o exigir. E de exigir transparência e contas - a tal 'accountability' inglesa.
Política: “The president strikes again”
O Presidente da República, Cavaco Silva, promulgou a lei da reprodução assistida. Mas, “preocupado com dignidade dos embriões”, terá feito recomendações. Cá está claramente mais um sinal do estilo que Cavaco parece querer seguir para a sua presidência. Segundo o constitucionalista Gomes Canotilho, citado pelo jornal Público, "a figura da promulgação condicionada não existe, é uma asneira absoluta". Canotilho considera que as observações do Presidente da República são apenas "reflexões legítimas, que constituem dúvidas pessoais", mas que cabem apenas na "dimensão de cidadania" do chefe de Estado. A mim também me parece, embora não seja constitucionalista... O presidente ou promulga ou não promulga, mas não me parece normal que possa condicionar a governação futura nem a aplicação futura das leis, estabelecendo parâmetros para a regulamentação e aplicação da lei segundo os seus desígnios. Enfim, está para ver como continuará este estilo de presidência. Mas neste caso, ficou claro: “O Presidente não encontrou motivos para o pedido de fiscalização da constitucionalidade nem motivos para o veto político."
Mas, como (bem) escreve o sociólogo João Teixeira Lopes no Público, no artigo “O tempo e o modo de Cavaco Silva”, é bastante revelador que João Carlos Espada (conhecido neoconservador), José Manuel Fernandes (outro dos ideólogos do liberalismo radical) e outros façam parte da “corte” do presidente. Isso explica certos procedimentos e acontecimentos. É também revelador que tenha como assessora para as "questões da vida" uma das vozes mais reaccionárias em matéria de reprodução medicamente assistida, legalização do aborto ou investigação científica em células estaminais. Assim como também foi revelador que o primeiro veto do Presidente tenha sido contra a paridade entre homens e mulheres na vida pública (ver post anterior neste blog). Como escreveu Teixeira Lopes, “que outro veto poderia conter, nesta altura, maior teor ideológico?”
Parece que vamos assim ter uma presidência puritana, conservadora. Que prefere a tradição, os “bons costumes”, a “família tradicional” (whatever that means) e os “bons valores morais”. Uma presidência que parece preferir a desresponsabilização do Estado nas políticas de protecção social substituindo-o por um papel caritativo da sociedade civil. Assim sendo, estaremos perante um “homem do passado no poder”, como escreveu Teixeira Lopes. Tudo menos alguém que pretende a um Portugal moderno, tudo menos alguém que pretende uma verdadeira social-democracia europeia. A seguir com atenção.
Mas, como (bem) escreve o sociólogo João Teixeira Lopes no Público, no artigo “O tempo e o modo de Cavaco Silva”, é bastante revelador que João Carlos Espada (conhecido neoconservador), José Manuel Fernandes (outro dos ideólogos do liberalismo radical) e outros façam parte da “corte” do presidente. Isso explica certos procedimentos e acontecimentos. É também revelador que tenha como assessora para as "questões da vida" uma das vozes mais reaccionárias em matéria de reprodução medicamente assistida, legalização do aborto ou investigação científica em células estaminais. Assim como também foi revelador que o primeiro veto do Presidente tenha sido contra a paridade entre homens e mulheres na vida pública (ver post anterior neste blog). Como escreveu Teixeira Lopes, “que outro veto poderia conter, nesta altura, maior teor ideológico?”
Parece que vamos assim ter uma presidência puritana, conservadora. Que prefere a tradição, os “bons costumes”, a “família tradicional” (whatever that means) e os “bons valores morais”. Uma presidência que parece preferir a desresponsabilização do Estado nas políticas de protecção social substituindo-o por um papel caritativo da sociedade civil. Assim sendo, estaremos perante um “homem do passado no poder”, como escreveu Teixeira Lopes. Tudo menos alguém que pretende a um Portugal moderno, tudo menos alguém que pretende uma verdadeira social-democracia europeia. A seguir com atenção.
12 juillet 2006
Liberté, égalité, fraternité, impunité
6 millions
Selon Le Monde digital, 6 millions est le montant auquel s'éleverait, en euros, les indemnités de départ de Noël Forgeard, le coprésident exécutif démissionnaire d'EADS. Elles représenteraient deux ans de salaire, plus une indemnité de non-concurrence. M. Forgeard détient encore par ailleurs un paquet de stock-options. Mais il ne faut pas oublier la vente d’actions qu’il aurait effectué avant qu’on annonce des retards avec l’A380, annonce qui avait par après provoqué la chute des actions d’Airbus. Chez nous ceci est connu comme “insider trading”, je crois.
Entre-temps, la Cour de justice européenne a jugé que Mme Edith Cresson devrait continuer à recevoir la pension qu’elle reçoit en tant qu’ex commissaire européenne. Elle avait été jugée coupable d’abus de pouvoir mais la Cour a considéré que cette condamnation « morale » était suffisante. Beaucoup de membres du parlement européen, surtout des britanniques, on considéré que cette décision donne un mauvais signal au contribuable européen. Effectivement, c’est probable que les gens aient la sensation qu’il y a souvent une impunité vis-à-vis les "grands", les "puissants" ou les "bien connectés". Mais ce phénomène semble exister partout. Au Portugal aussi, des cas en justice prescrivent souvent avant d’être jugés et que les personnes soient condamnées, et les "tout-puissants" échappent souvent. Mais le peuple, M. Tout-le-monde n’a pas le choix que de continuer à payer ses impôts. Et puis on se surprend quand la "racaille" descend dans les rues.
Selon Le Monde digital, 6 millions est le montant auquel s'éleverait, en euros, les indemnités de départ de Noël Forgeard, le coprésident exécutif démissionnaire d'EADS. Elles représenteraient deux ans de salaire, plus une indemnité de non-concurrence. M. Forgeard détient encore par ailleurs un paquet de stock-options. Mais il ne faut pas oublier la vente d’actions qu’il aurait effectué avant qu’on annonce des retards avec l’A380, annonce qui avait par après provoqué la chute des actions d’Airbus. Chez nous ceci est connu comme “insider trading”, je crois.
Entre-temps, la Cour de justice européenne a jugé que Mme Edith Cresson devrait continuer à recevoir la pension qu’elle reçoit en tant qu’ex commissaire européenne. Elle avait été jugée coupable d’abus de pouvoir mais la Cour a considéré que cette condamnation « morale » était suffisante. Beaucoup de membres du parlement européen, surtout des britanniques, on considéré que cette décision donne un mauvais signal au contribuable européen. Effectivement, c’est probable que les gens aient la sensation qu’il y a souvent une impunité vis-à-vis les "grands", les "puissants" ou les "bien connectés". Mais ce phénomène semble exister partout. Au Portugal aussi, des cas en justice prescrivent souvent avant d’être jugés et que les personnes soient condamnées, et les "tout-puissants" échappent souvent. Mais le peuple, M. Tout-le-monde n’a pas le choix que de continuer à payer ses impôts. Et puis on se surprend quand la "racaille" descend dans les rues.
11 juillet 2006
Music: IMPEACH Mr BUSH (by PEACHES)
The group PEACHES has just brought out their third and new album "Impeach Mr Bush". Great name... same old contestatarian spirit! I like mostly the tracks "Downtown", & particularly the SMD Remix, and "Tent in your pants".
TRACK LIST 01 Fuck Or Kill 02 Tent In Your Pants 03 Hit It Hard 04 Boys Wanna Be Her 05 DownTown 06 Two Guys (For Every Girl) 07 Rock The Shocker 08 You Love It 09 Slippery ick 10 Get It 11 Give ëEr 12 Do Ya 13 Stick It.
10 juillet 2006
08 juillet 2006
Music: Catclub is cool!
Here some pictures from yesterday's Catclub party. The music was excellent and so was the venue, a southern atmosphere, by a little port in the canal with small boats... The DJs were very good, I think they are really on top of the present wave... very trendy, minimal electro house, I would say. Not really techno. Lindstrom, Kompakt style and others alike... Bubble is a young french guy from Lille and he was very fresh and cool. Check his website from where you can download some DJ sets. He was followed by Marc Romboy who was also excellent, a very cool wave, very well programmed - check his website from where you can also dowload tracks. I didn't make it to listen to LadyJane, hélas... but it was already late & I didn't want to ruin my saturday. But I already know her - check her website. So in conclusion a pleasant party with a cool young crowd (I was definitely one of the oldest ones though...). Hopefully they'll repeat the venue... It's better than the caves of Barrio in central Brussels.
07 juillet 2006
Music: CATCLUB party in Brussels, 7 July
This Friday 7 July (from 11 pm) there is CATCLUB party in Brussels! This time CATCLUB goes to the newly revamped Brussels Royal Yacht Club. It seems that the place is one of the nicest spots in Brussels, so I definitely will check that. There's an amazing terrace with view on the canal.
For this new party DJ LADY JANE (she is CATCLUB…) has invited MARC ROMBOY, a new wonderboy of the electronic music scene, who has just brought out a CD “Gemini” on systematic recordings, his own label. He has also collaborated with great musicians like Booka Shades, Martin Landsky and John Dalback (for instance “Everyday of my life” - Booka shade vs Marc Romboy).
To check the way to the venue see www.catclub.be
Cidadania: Lei da paridade
Claro que em Portugal uma lei da paridade não poderia ter sido nunca aprovada sem que alguns (conservadores, velhos do Restelo e saudosos do tempo da outra senhora) se manifestassem. Seria fácil demais.
Há algumas semanas, o Presidente da Républica, Cavaco Silva, vetou a Lei da Paridade que tinha sido aprovada pela Assembleia de República. Essa lei previa a exclusão das listas eleitorais que não cumprissem a quota de 33,3% de cada género. Cavaco Silva considerou essa sanção excessiva e de difícil cumprimento em certas zonas do país e vetou a lei. Parece não ser do seu agradado que se procure dignificar os direitos políticos das mulheres e aumentar a sua participação política através de «mecanismos sancionatórios» que, segundo ele, lhes concedem «um inadmissível estatuto de menoridade».
Menoridade? Mas a que propósito? Com que direito? Pois parece que continuamos a ter um país de velhos do Restelo, os tais dos "brandos costumes". Está mais que visto, em Portugal como noutros países, que sem políticas de paridade activas é muito dificil aumentar a participação feminina na política e mesmo noutras áreas. Ou como foi que os países escandinavos mudaram radicalmente? O mundo da política é um mundo de homens e no contexto familiar e social português actual, a participação das mulheres não está fácilitada. No entanto, quando em Portugal se propõem leis que tentam mudar as coisas, ser inovadoras, com o objectivo de tentar melhorar algo, alguns portugueses acham que não pode ser. É demasiado para os eles, um país de tão brandos costumes.
Com as alterações agora aprovadas, veremos se o Presidente volta a ter a coragem de vetar a lei. Nesse caso convirá lembrar-lhe que os portugueses escolheram um Parlamento para aprovar leis, para o bem e para o mal, durante quatro anos. E que temos um Governo para fazer propostas ao Parlamento e para governar. Já estamos fartos (eu em todo o caso) de morais e de brandos costumes de governantes que prestaram péssimo serviço ao país. Lembro-me por exemplo da Lei do Aborto que ridiculamente Portugal ainda não conseguiu aprovar, ou da regionalização, que alguns partidos escandalosamente diabolizaram. Basta de julgamentos morais, que deixem a moral em casa. E já agora também, de interesses partidários. Mas com os assessores conservadores que rodeiam o Presidente, quem sabe...
Mas, efectivamente, esta Lei da Paridade não resolve os problemas. Não basta fazer leis. Para que as mulheres portuguesas tenham uma participação maior na vida politica (e associativa) portuguesa o Estado deveria fazer algo mais para lhes facilitar a vida. Por exemplo, alargar o número de creches (jardins de infância) públicos, com horários que permitam às mães trabalhar e deixar os filhos em segurança. Em Lisboa, segundo um estudo recente, parece que aproximadamente 80% das creches são privadas, algumas com custos elevadíssimos para os pais. Isso não é aceitável. Como não é o numero crescente de colégios e de ensino privado (alguns caríssimos). Estas situações apenas contribuem para aumentar as já grandes disparidades sociais. Cada vez mais, apenas quem pode pagar tem acesso à (boa) educação. E o circulo vicioso não para. Haveria que começar aqui, criar mais creches públicas, escolas primárias públicas e espaços para actividades extra-curriculares dos jovens, que complementem o ensino público. Para que os pais, e as mães em particular (porque são em geral elas que mais sofrem) possam trabalhar e dedicar-se a outras actividades sabendo que os seus filhos estão bem. Aí aumenta-se a participação feminina e ao mesmo tempo dão-se oportunidades de educação a todos. Porque o país tem de aproveitar as potencialidades de todos da melhor forma e não se pode dar ao luxo de desperdiçar o tal capital humano!
E estas e outras medidas ajudariam bastante a que as mulheres pudessem ter uma participação mais activa. Continuando a ter filhos, entenda-se, porque o país não deseja certamente ver a taxa de natalidade e de fecundidade reduzir-se ainda mais.
Há algumas semanas, o Presidente da Républica, Cavaco Silva, vetou a Lei da Paridade que tinha sido aprovada pela Assembleia de República. Essa lei previa a exclusão das listas eleitorais que não cumprissem a quota de 33,3% de cada género. Cavaco Silva considerou essa sanção excessiva e de difícil cumprimento em certas zonas do país e vetou a lei. Parece não ser do seu agradado que se procure dignificar os direitos políticos das mulheres e aumentar a sua participação política através de «mecanismos sancionatórios» que, segundo ele, lhes concedem «um inadmissível estatuto de menoridade».
Menoridade? Mas a que propósito? Com que direito? Pois parece que continuamos a ter um país de velhos do Restelo, os tais dos "brandos costumes". Está mais que visto, em Portugal como noutros países, que sem políticas de paridade activas é muito dificil aumentar a participação feminina na política e mesmo noutras áreas. Ou como foi que os países escandinavos mudaram radicalmente? O mundo da política é um mundo de homens e no contexto familiar e social português actual, a participação das mulheres não está fácilitada. No entanto, quando em Portugal se propõem leis que tentam mudar as coisas, ser inovadoras, com o objectivo de tentar melhorar algo, alguns portugueses acham que não pode ser. É demasiado para os eles, um país de tão brandos costumes.
Com as alterações agora aprovadas, veremos se o Presidente volta a ter a coragem de vetar a lei. Nesse caso convirá lembrar-lhe que os portugueses escolheram um Parlamento para aprovar leis, para o bem e para o mal, durante quatro anos. E que temos um Governo para fazer propostas ao Parlamento e para governar. Já estamos fartos (eu em todo o caso) de morais e de brandos costumes de governantes que prestaram péssimo serviço ao país. Lembro-me por exemplo da Lei do Aborto que ridiculamente Portugal ainda não conseguiu aprovar, ou da regionalização, que alguns partidos escandalosamente diabolizaram. Basta de julgamentos morais, que deixem a moral em casa. E já agora também, de interesses partidários. Mas com os assessores conservadores que rodeiam o Presidente, quem sabe...
Mas, efectivamente, esta Lei da Paridade não resolve os problemas. Não basta fazer leis. Para que as mulheres portuguesas tenham uma participação maior na vida politica (e associativa) portuguesa o Estado deveria fazer algo mais para lhes facilitar a vida. Por exemplo, alargar o número de creches (jardins de infância) públicos, com horários que permitam às mães trabalhar e deixar os filhos em segurança. Em Lisboa, segundo um estudo recente, parece que aproximadamente 80% das creches são privadas, algumas com custos elevadíssimos para os pais. Isso não é aceitável. Como não é o numero crescente de colégios e de ensino privado (alguns caríssimos). Estas situações apenas contribuem para aumentar as já grandes disparidades sociais. Cada vez mais, apenas quem pode pagar tem acesso à (boa) educação. E o circulo vicioso não para. Haveria que começar aqui, criar mais creches públicas, escolas primárias públicas e espaços para actividades extra-curriculares dos jovens, que complementem o ensino público. Para que os pais, e as mães em particular (porque são em geral elas que mais sofrem) possam trabalhar e dedicar-se a outras actividades sabendo que os seus filhos estão bem. Aí aumenta-se a participação feminina e ao mesmo tempo dão-se oportunidades de educação a todos. Porque o país tem de aproveitar as potencialidades de todos da melhor forma e não se pode dar ao luxo de desperdiçar o tal capital humano!
E estas e outras medidas ajudariam bastante a que as mulheres pudessem ter uma participação mais activa. Continuando a ter filhos, entenda-se, porque o país não deseja certamente ver a taxa de natalidade e de fecundidade reduzir-se ainda mais.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)