À procura de textos e pretextos, e dos seus contextos.

22/12/2010

Mãos largas

João Paulo Guerra   

O Estado, pessoa colectiva de direito público, tem umas enormes e largas mãos com que gere os dinheiros públicos e, simultaneamente, caça níqueis nos bolsos privados.
E ao mesmo tempo que as manápulas do Estado vasculham cada cêntimo que os cidadãos auferem ou movimentam, as largas mãos do Estado desfazem-se em benesses para certas freguesias. E então o país ficou agora a saber - através de uma queixa da eurodeputada Ana Gomes à Comissão Europeia - que o contrato para aquisição de uns submarinos pelo Estado português contém uma inimaginável cláusula segundo a qual o preço dos submergíveis se actualiza diariamente. Quer dizer: estamos aqui a escrever ou a ler o jornal, havemos de ir almoçar, ao fim do dia regressamos a casa, convivemos com amigos e família, por fim vamos dormir e o taxímetro do preço dos submarinos não parou nem pára. E foi assim que em nove meses Portugal terá pago um acréscimo de 64 milhões de euros ao fornecedor alemão de submarinos.
Este mesmo Estado, magnânimo de uma banda e tão pouco da outra (como diria o compositor Fausto Bordalo Dias), o Estado que já injectou quatro mil e quinhentos milhões no BPN, prepara-se para injectar mais 500 milhões. E como não há contabilidade que resista a tão largas mãos como são as do Estado, vá de caçar receitas, baixando salários e pensões no país mais mal pago da Europa, aumentando impostos no país com mais aumento de carga fiscal entre os 27 da UE, exterminando prestações sociais, permitindo aumentos de preços acima da inflação no país que está vinte por cento abaixo da média europeia em poder de compra, subvertendo a Constituição da República.
Em Portugal, há portugueses pobres a darem para as caixinhas de esmolas do BPN e dos fornecedores de submarinos.

http://economico.sapo.pt/noticias/maos-largas_107287.html

Trabalhadores da Delphi da Guarda despedem-se da fábrica esta quarta-feira

Os 321 trabalhadores despedidos da Delphi da Guarda atravessam, esta quarta-feira, pela última vez, os portões da fábrica para receberem as cartas do despedimento colectivo.

Oficialmente, os operários estão a partir desta quarta-feira em férias de Natal e Ano Novo, porque a fábrica só fecha a actividade em Dezembro.
Vítor Tavares, dirigente sindical e membro da comissão de trabalhadores da Delphi, confessou acreditar que a zona da fábrica está «amaldiçoada», porque anteriormente também a Renault abandonou aquele local, e frisou que o Interior está «esquecido» em relação ao resto do país.
Numa operação que acaba de empurrar mais 318 operários para o desemprego, todos têm que cumprir o ultimo «castigo», ou seja, voltar a uma fábrica vazia, acrescentou.
Na Guarda, o tempo é agora de os políticos cumprirem as promessas feitas, avisou o dirigente sindical.
«Vai ser complicado, esperamos que o poder político local cumpra aquilo que prometeu», ou seja, «dar andamento aos processos» de candidaturas de novas empresas, bem como atrair investimento, acrescentou.

http://tsf.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Economia/Interior.aspx?content_id=1740626

Preços dos combustíveis, antes de impostos, estão acima da média da UE

CGTP diz que Governo deve cumprir o acordado e subir o salário mínimo para 500 euros

Ferroviários podem fazer manifestação nacional

Carvalho da Silva insiste no aumento do salário mínimo

Na Grécia sentem-se os efeitos da greve geral

WikiLeaks e Portugal

Guilherme Alves Coelho

Guilherme Coelho fez uma pesquisa sobre os textos divulgados por wikileaks relacionados com Portugal. É o resultado desse exaustivo trabalho de Guilherme Coelho que hoje publicamos.

1. O site da internet WikiLeaks começou a publicar no dia 28 de Novembro 251.287 telegramas confidenciais provenientes de 274 embaixadas dos EUA espalhadas pelo mundo, tornando-se assim esta a maior quantidade de documentos deste género jamais divulgada publicamente.
O período de relatos vai desde 2006 até hoje, incluindo portanto a administração Obama e reportando directamente à Secretária de Estado Hillary Clinton. Os primeiros documentos foram divulgados através de cinco dos jornais diários de maior influência em todo o mundo. No site da organização estavam a ser disponibilizados diariamente (http://cablegate.wikileaks.org), e, após o ataque pirata norte-americano, continuam a ser acessíveis em sites de terceiros que se disponibilizaram para isso.
Apesar do muito que já se sabia ou suspeitava, não há dúvida que o site Wikileaks, nomeadamente este conjunto de mensagens denominado Cablegate, está a mexer com os governos de todo o mundo. A maior perturbação naturalmente vem da própria administração norte-americana, apesar de esta, de início, ter desvalorizado o conteúdo das publicações, alegando mencionarem apenas factos conhecidos.
Do que se trata afinal? Qual a razão de tamanho burburinho?
Diversas interpretações têm sido avançadas por muitos comentadores sobre quais as verdadeiras intenções desta operação. Segundo o próprio site os documentos servem para mostrar as contradições entre os EUA persona publica e o que se diz «á porta fechada». As fugas teriam apenas objectivos altruístas da parte de Assange e seus companheiros.
Alguns comentadores corroboram esta opinião afirmando que a publicação seria a confirmação da postura ditatorial dos EUA relativamente aos restantes países. Opinam outros que tudo não passaria de mais uma manobra das agências de espionagem norte-americanas ou de Israel, com a intenção de comprometer países «inimigos» como o Irão, a Coreia do Norte, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Outros ousam mesmo afirmar que estaria em curso uma manobra provocatória por parte de sectores militaristas dos EUA, um novo 11 de Setembro, com o objectivo de cercear a liberdade na Internet. De referir que ainda muito recentemente o dossier Internet foi atribuído por Obama ao Pentágono. Os EUA estavam, aparentemente, a perder a guerra da informação através da Internet.
A publicação dos documentos no WikLeaks gerou imediata e natural reacção do Presidente dos EUA que determinou o ataque ao site e a imposição de terminarem os seus serviços a vários operadores usados pelo WikiLeaks. Outros operadores, mais papistas que o Papa, fizeram-nos de livre vontade. Como de costume os habituais «patriotas» norte-americanos fizeram sentir a sua voz, clamando o linchamento público de Assange e da sua gente, ou pelo menos a sua prisão alegando terrorismo.
A resposta da comunidade web não se fez esperar e multiplicaram-se os «espelhos» (sites repetidores) [1] por todo o mundo, que o WikiLeaks havia solicitado, tornando assim praticamente impossível o seu bloqueamento.
Por outro lado, por sua própria iniciativa, os hackers (habitualmente piratas informáticos), fizeram a sua entrada espectacular em cena (ou no campo de batalha), «contra a prepotência norte-americana e em defesa da liberdade», como referem, e bloquearam durante largos períodos os acessos aqueles operadores, pelo mesmo processo que os norte-americanos haviam usado.
Os EUA procuram agora incriminar Julian Assange baseados numa hipotética cumplicidade na fuga dos anteriores documentos sobre o Iraque. Entretanto o homem que deu a cara pelo site WikiLeaks esteve preso em Londres e só saiu sob uma fiança de 235.000 euros e em regime de residência fixa. A Suécia tinha emitido um mandato de captura contra ele, com a acusação de violação de duas jovens naquele pais. Segundo alguns comentadores tratar-se-iam de «profissionais» do ramo ligadas aos serviços secretos norte-americanos. A Interpol, diligentemente, fez o resto.
Seja qual for a verdade - e aqui o objectivo geral confunde-se ironicamente com o particular - o certo é que, pela primeira vez na história, está aberta uma situação completamente nova de confrontação global, num espaço virtual, o que alguns já classificaram de ciber-guerra.
Estamos no inicio de um processo, perante algo sem precedentes e de consequências imprevisíveis, mas certamente muito importantes para o futuro da humanidade. Importantes por se tratar da rede mundial de comunicações, responsável por muito do que hoje se faz e diz no mundo. Mas também importantes por estarem em causa princípios como a liberdade de informação. Importantes por esta ser hoje a principal fonte alternativa à (des) informação oficial. Finalmente importante porque será neste espaço virtual que muito se decidirá no futuro em termos de contenção de um possível conflito militar.
Como se costuma dizer, ainda agora a procissão vai no adro. Há que acompanhar os próximos acontecimentos com atenção redobrada, para ficarmos a saber para que lado se irá inclinando o prato da balança. Até lá certamente continuaremos a conhecer mais situações esclarecedoras, escandalosas, embaraçosas, ou apenas ridículas, que merecerão certamente tratamento separado e detalhado. É o caso, por exemplo, neste momento de alguns telegramas já publicados e referentes a Portugal.
2. Embora considerado um pais amigo, Portugal não deixa de ser apreciado pelos EUA, através dos relatórios da embaixada da Av. das Forças Armadas em Lisboa. De acordo com o jornal «El País», daqui foram enviados para Washington 722 dos mais de 250 mil documentos disponibilizados pelo WikiLeaks. (2)
Eis, em resumo, alguns dos documentos enviados a partir da Embaixada de Lisboa e publicados pelo jornal espanhol El País» e respectivos links:

• Mensagem sobre as provas do caso Madeleine.

Em 2007 o embaixador de Londres confirmou ao seu homólogo dos EUA que «as provas contra os pais de Madeleine foram obtidas pela polícia britânica.»
A mensagem relata uma conversa entre o Embaixador norte-americano Hoffman e o Embaixador britânico Alexander Ellis, recém chegado a Portugal. Começava por uma apreciação sobre politica energética da UE para fazer face á politica agressiva da Rússia. Falou-se também sobre a possibilidade da participação de Robert Mugabe na cimeira UE-África, desde que o Sr. Brown (Primeiro Ministro) estivesse ausente. Descreveu a Rússia como uma sociedade «bipolar, umas vezes forte e outras fraca». E ainda como o grande mau vizinho.
Sobre Chávez e Ahmadinejad, Ellis comentou que o envolvimento de Portugal estava centrado no «engajamento», mesmo em relação aos chamados tipos beras. O Embaixador Hoffman contrapôs que «de pessoas irracionais não se pode esperar racionalidade». (sublinhado nosso). Embora reconhecendo que a posição dos EUA era justificável, Ellis respondeu que havia sensibilidades em jogo para Portugal, especialmente em relação à Venezuela.
Finalmente sobre o caso Mc Cann, o Embaixador Ellis admitiu, sem entrar em detalhes, ter sido a policia inglesa que desenvolveu as provas contra os pais de Madeleine McCann, desaparecida em Maio de 2007, no Sul de Portugal. Comentou que, dada a agitação dos media seria aceitável que os governos mantivessem os seus comentários à porta fechada.
(TEXTO REF.: Cable sobre las pruebas del caso Madeleine)
(’Caso Madeleine’: la policía británica apuntó a los padres)
• Presidente do primeiro banco luso ofereceu-se aos EUA para informar sobre o Irão.
O jornal “El País” comenta assim este documento:
«O chefe do Millenium BCP tentou um acordo secreto com os EUA para fazer negócios em Teerão em troca de certos trabalhos de espionagem».
Carlos Santos Ferreira (CSF), presidente do Millenium, propôs fazer espionagem a favor dos EUA, oferecendo informações das actividades financeiras da Republica Islâmica. A operação contava com o conhecimento do primeiro-ministro português, José Sócrates e de membros do seu governo. A história começa em 2009 quando CSF, é convidado pela embaixada Iraniana em Lisboa para avaliar do interesse da República Islâmica em estabelecer uma relação com o banco português. Passados meses, CSF, «bom amigo dos EUA», põe-se à disposição da Embaixada «para que o Governo dos EUA controle as contas iranianas no Millenium». Embora não o diga, a Embaixada norte-americana crê que, pelo menos, o Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros está ao corrente da proposta do banqueiro.
Mais tarde o embaixador dos EUA é informado que Portugal não está interessado em aprofundar negócios com o Irão.
Em outro despacho refere-se a intenção do Governo manter a porta aberta para a entrada no Irão da Galp Energia.
Em comentário próprio, informa o jornal espanhol que CSF foi deputado do PS na década de 70 e é próximo de Sócrates e Guterres.
Assinala ainda que CSF informou que quando presidente da Fundição de Oeiras terá vendido ao Irão apetrechos militares por mais de 20 anos. Comenta o articulista do El País que esta referência pode ser muito importante no momento em que se pretende abrir de novo o dossier Camarate e em que há suspeitas de o acidente ter relações com o fornecimento de armas ao Irão.
(El presidente del primer banco luso ofreció a EE UU informar sobre Irán 
-

Edición impresa)
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Cable/relaciones/banco/portugues/Millennium/Iran/elpepuint/20101212elpepuint_9/Tes
• José Sócrates é “carismático” e “desagrada-lhe partilhar o poder”
Depois de referir a tradicional fidelidade de Portugal aos EUA, a mensagem caracteriza a personalidade de José Sócrates, a quem classifica de carismático, mas teimoso, bem como a de Cavaco Silva, considerado um homem bipartidarista. Este é porém visto pela embaixada como vingativo por não ter sido recebido por Bush filho na Sala Oval, pois se considerava amigo de Bush pai. Tal atitude teria levado o Embaixador à conclusão de ser ele o responsável pela posição de Portugal sobre o Afeganistão e sobre o Kosovo. Outro aspecto que desagradava ao diplomata eram as boas relações de Portugal com a Venezuela de Hugo Chávez, mesmo atenuadas com o conhecimento de que, em privado, Lisboa enviava «duras mensagens a Caracas». Por fim é referida a opinião de Cavaco sobre o Presidente da Venezuela: «Conheci Chávez, é um homem louco, mas… há 500 mil portugueses na Venezuela.»

(José Sócrates es “carismático” y “le desagrada compartir el poder” 


Edición impresa)
(TEXTO REF.: Cable sobre el malestar de Cavaco Silva por no haber sido recibido en la Casa Blanca)
• Mensagem sobre as relações entre Portugal e a Venezuela
Neste telegrama, titulado «PORTUGAL: NÓS SABEMOS QUE CHÁVEZ É UM LOUCO MAS…» a Embaixada dos EUA em Lisboa aprecia as relações de Portugal com a Venezuela.
Refere o sumário da mensagem as preocupações dos EUA sobre as relações de Portugal com a Venezuela e dá a entender que as explicações do Governo Português serão razoáveis. Assim, diz que embora Portugal seja o país da UE mais visitado por Hugo Chávez, isso se deve à necessidade de proteger a grande quantidade de população portuguesa nesse país. Para além disso foram estabelecidas relações bilaterais sobre diversos programas económicos: «leite por petróleo», «infra-estruturas por petróleo» e «tecnologia por petróleo».
Depois de mais algumas considerações sobre a personalidade de Chávez, o texto termina relatando o embaraço de Sócrates perante aquilo que classifica de indiscrições de Chávez ao referir num programa de TV comentários privados de Sócrates.

(TEXTO REF.: Cable sobre las relaciones entre Portugal y Venezuela)
• Mensagem sobre o partido da oposição Partido Social Democrata.

Mensagem intitulada «A oposição portuguesa procura novo líder», datada de 26/01/2008.
Relata-se opinião da embaixada sobre a corrida à liderança do maior partido do «centro-direita» (sic) em que a «unificadora» Manuela Ferreira Leite defronta o «polarizador» Santana Lopes. MFL seria a candidata favorita, quer do partido quer do eleitorado.

(TEXTO REF.: Cable sobre el opositor Partido Social Demócrata)
Sócrates aprovou em segredo os voos desde Guantanamo.

Eis como o “El País” comenta este telegrama:
«Portugal deu luz verde ao uso do espaço aéreo luso e da base das Lages para a repatriação de presos da prisão dos EUA – Lisboa reconheceu que foi uma decisão dificil.»
O Primeiro-ministro português, José Sócrates e o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Luís Amado, autorizaram o sobrevoo de aviões norte-americanos com prisioneiros repatriados da prisão de Guantánamo, ainda que o Governo nunca o tenha reconhecido publicamente. Vários relatórios da embaixada dos EUA de Lisboa entre 2006 e 2009 dão conta das pressões de Washington e da cautela do Governo português para autorizar esses voos. Destaca o jornal que a denúncia da existência de prisões clandestinas na Europa (Roménia e Polónia) e de voos secretos da CIA [3], em que os detidos de origem árabe, suspeitos de terrorismo, eram transferidos clandestinamente em aviões norte-americanos de Guantánamo, levantaram grande polémica em Portugal.
Realça a mensagem que o Embaixador norte-americano envia para Washington a 7 de Setembro de 2007, comunicando que «Sócrates aceitou permitir a repatriação caso por caso, (…) através da Base das Lages», dez dias antes da reunião de Bush com o Primeiro -ministro português. Menciona que este disse que foi uma decisão difícil por causa das criticas de meios de comunicação e de «elementos esquerdistas» (sic) do seu próprio partido.
Mais adiante, a notícia relata o comentário do assessor diplomático de Sócrates Jorge Roza de Oliveira, ao Embaixador Hoffman sobre a socialista Ana Gomes que questionara o Governo sobre os voos: «é uma senhora muito excitada que é pior que um rottweiler solto».
Um telegrama enviado à ainda secretária de Estado Condolezza Rice, dá conta da excelente reputação de Luís Amado junto da Administração norte-americana. Nessa mesma mensagem o embaixador destacava a tradicional lealdade de Portugal, «sócio fundador da OTAN», que apoiou a intervenção no Iraque e recebeu a cimeira dos Açores. Um aliado que permitiu virtualmente livre acesso de apoio às operações no Iraque e Afeganistão. Cerca de 3.000 voos por ano passavam na base da Lages.
(http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Socrates/aprobo/secreto/vuelos/Guantanamo/elpepuint/20101215elpepuint_32/Tes)
(http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Cable/EE/UU/pide/autorizacion/usar/base/Lajes/repatriar/prisioneros/Guantanamo/elpepuesp/20101215elpepuint_30/Tes)
Junto com esta notícia constam mais mais seis links para mensagens que poderão ser consultadas no original [4].
NOTAS:
[1] http://databasept.web44.#873164
[2] «Da correspondência com origem em Lisboa, a maioria (415) é informação não classificada, 292 são documentos confidenciais e 15 são secretos. O primeiro telegrama, datado de 24 de Maio de 2006, tem como temas genéricos “Fronteiras entre Estados, Territórios e Soberania”, “Relações Políticas Externas”, “Questões de Política Interna”, “Portugal” e “OSCE” e remete para o Fórum da Organização para a Segurança e Cooperação na Europa que terminou nesse mesmo dia em Praga. O último, de 25 de Fevereiro deste ano, faz referência a “Terroristas e Terrorismo”, “Comunicações e Sistemas de Correios”, “Condições Económicas” e novamente “Relações Políticas Externas”.» (jornal “Público”)
[3] http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/vuelos/sucios/CIA/elpepuint/20100706elpepuint_8/Tes

http://www.odiario.info/?p=1911 

Sindicatos pedem consenso nacional sobre educação

Contra as medidas "avulsas e cegas", que visam apenas poupar alguns milhares de euros, os sindicatos dos professores reclamam um amplo debate nacional sobre o estado da educação em Portugal.

Objectivo: estabelecer um consenso nacional capaz de impedir que as políticas educativas mudem a cada mudança de ministro ou de Governo.

Esta reivindicação surge a reboque dos pareceres de ontem em que o Conselho Nacional de Educação (CNE) qualifica como "pontuais e desconexas" as alterações que o Governo vai introduzir no ensino básico e secundário e nas quais se inclui, por exemplo, o fim das Áreas de Projecto e a redução do Estudo Acompanhado aos alunos em dificuldades.

"A educação não pode continuar a vogar ao ritmo de políticas economicistas", disse ao PÚBLICO Mário Nogueira, da Fenprof. "As opções educativas não podem continuar condicionadas por cada mudança de ministro e por cada mudança de governo", corroborou João Dias da Silva, da FNE, preconizando a criação de uma nova lei de bases, "no quadro de uma amplo consenso nacional que obrigue os diferentes partidos a manter pressupostos básicos na sua acção governativa".

Para Mário Nogueira os reparos contidos nos pareceres do CNE são "justos e adequados". Isto porque as alterações propostas pelo Governo visam apenas permitir que "o Estado poupe qualquer coisa como 803 milhões de euros, ainda que daí resultem situações complicadas até do ponto de vista da segurança", acrescentou, referindo-se à redução de dois para um do número de professores a leccionar Educação Visual e Tecnológica (EVT).

O CNE também considera que a supressão de um dos dois professores de EVT pode pôr em causa "a segurança dos alunos no manuseamento de utensílios, ferramentas e materiais diversos". Este órgão consultivo para as políticas educativas também vê com apreensão a redução da carga horária semanal dos alunos do básico. E avisa que as políticas educativas não podem resultar de restrições orçamentais, sob pena de comprometer a melhoria registada pelos alunos portugueses no PISA 2009.
 
http://publico.clix.pt/Educa%C3%A7%C3%A3o/sindicatos-pedem-consenso-nacional-sobre-educacao_1472090

Ferroviários continuam a temer despedimentos na CP

Após a reunião com o ministro dos Transportes, o Sindicato Nacional dos Trabalhadores do Sector Ferroviário mostra preocupação e admite realizar uma manifestação nacional.

A reunião decorreu a pedido do sindicato, que pretendia  esclarecimentos sobre os cortes previstos para o próximo ano, no âmbito da redução de custos no sector empresarial do Estado.
Segundo o sindicato, o orçamento da CP para o próximo ano prevê o corte de 815 postos de trabalho, bem como a diminuição da oferta de serviços. O ministério prefere falar apenas em reestruturação da empresa.
No final do encontro com o ministro António Mendonça, os representantes do sindicato dizem não ter ficado mais descansados, face ao que consideram «discurso generalista» do ministro.
Esta quinta-feira, pelas 10h00, o sindicato vai discutir a possibilidade de realizar uma manifestação nacional na primeira quinzena de Janeiro - a proposta já foi lançada às várias comissões de trabalhadores e a outros sindicatos.

http://tsf.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Portugal/Interior.aspx?content_id=174043

Salário mínimo a 500 euros abrangerá 38% de trabalhadores no Norte

Se o Salário Mínimo Nacional subir para 500 euros, 38% dos trabalhadores por conta de outrem do Norte passarão auferir aquele valor. A actualização é hoje, quarta-feira, analisada pela última vez na Concertação Social e a CGTP acena com formas de luta se a subida não ocorrer em Janeiro.
Os vários cenários (de actualizações salariais), usados no relatório que o Governo enviou aos parceiros sociais para perceber o impacto de uma subida do salário mínimo para os 500 euros, revelam que, face a este valor, 38% dos trabalhadores da Região Norte ficam com uma retribuição mensal ao nível da do SMN. Em Lisboa, serão entre 24,9% e 26%.
A Concertação Social analisa hoje pela última vez o SMN de 2011, sabendo-se já que a CGTP não aceita que não suba para os 500 euros já em Janeiro. Mas há parceiros interessados em discutir hoje se e quando se chega àquele valor. "No pré-aviso da greve geral de 24 de Novembro, estava incluída a actualização do salário mínimo nacional", lembrou ontem Carvalho da Silva, sinalizando que não aceitará uma subida inferior e que o não cumprimento do acordo poderá levar a formas de luta.
O líder da CGTP - que falava numa conferência de imprensa onde analisou e criticou as recentes propostas do Governo sobre crescimento e emprego - não especificou que protestos podem ser equacionados, mas adiantou que, face aos mais recentes acontecimentos, a Central decidiu antecipar o seu Conselho Nacional e o Plenário de sindicatos, para 4 e 7 de Janeiro, respectivamente.
Já os restantes parceiros defenderão uma posição diferente. Do lado da UGT, há abertura para que a subida do salário mínimo seja faseada, ainda que, como sublinhou ao JN João Proença, exija que no final do ano o SMN esteja nos 500 euros. Do lado da Confederação do Comércio de Portugal (CCP), a proposta do seu presidente é a de um aumento em Janeiro em linha com a inflação. O resto virá se "houver condições".
Além do SMN, cujo valor será depois fixado pelo Governo, pouco se deverá falar hoje sobre as indemnizações em caso de despedimento. A expectativa é que apenas se calendarizem as reuniões para estas matérias.

http://jn.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Economia/Interior.aspx?content_id=1740305

21/12/2010

Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism

Frank Newport

Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.
1982-2010 Trend: Views of Human Origins (Humans Evolved, With God Guiding; Humans Evolved Without God's Involvment; God Created Humans in Present Form)
A small minority of Americans hold the "secular evolution" view that humans evolved with no influence from God -- but the number has risen from 9% in 1982 to 16% today. At the same time, the 40% of Americans who hold the "creationist" view that God created humans as is 10,000 years ago is the lowest in Gallup's history of asking this question, and down from a high point of 47% in 1993 and 1999. There has been little change over the years in the percentage holding the "theistic evolution" view that humans evolved under God's guidance.
Americans' views on human origins vary significantly by level of education and religiosity. Those who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view. Those with college degrees and postgraduate education are more likely to hold one of the two viewpoints involving evolution.
December 2010 Views of Human Origins (Humans Evolved, With God Guiding; Humans Evolved Without God's Involvment; God Created Humans in Present Form) -- by Education
Americans who attend church frequently are most likely to accept explanations for the origin of humans that involve God, not a surprising finding. Still, the creationist viewpoint, held by 60% of weekly churchgoers, is not universal even among the most highly religious group. Also, about a fourth of those who seldom or never attend church choose the creationist view
December 2010 Views of Human Origins (Humans Evolved, With God Guiding; Humans Evolved Without God's Involvment; God Created Humans in Present Form) -- by Frequency of Church Attendance
The significantly higher percentage of Republicans who choose a creationist view of human origins reflects in part the strong relationship between religion and politics in contemporary America. Republicans are significantly more likely to attend church weekly than are others, and, as noted, Americans who attend church weekly are most likely to select the creationist alternative for the origin of humans.
December 2010 Views of Human Origins (Humans Evolved, With God Guiding; Humans Evolved Without God's Involvment; God Created Humans in Present Form) -- by Party
Implications
Most Americans believe in God, and about 85% have a religious identity. It is not surprising as a result to find that about 8 in 10 Americans hold a view of human origins that involves actions by God -- that he either created humans as depicted in the book of Genesis, or guided a process of evolution. What no doubt continues to surprise many scientists is that 4 out of 10 Americans believe in the first of these explanations.
These views have been generally stable over the last 28 years. Acceptance of the creationist viewpoint has decreased slightly over time, with a concomitant rise in acceptance of a secular evolution perspective. But these shifts have not been large, and the basic structure of beliefs about human beings' origins is generally the same as it was in the early 1980s.
Americans' attitudes about almost anything can and often do have political consequences. Views on the origins of humans are no exception. Debates and clashes over which explanations for human origins should be included in school textbooks have persisted for decades. With 40% of Americans continuing to hold to an anti-evolutionary belief about the origin of humans, it is highly likely that these types of debates will continue.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Dec. 10-12, 2010, with a random sample of 1,019 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone-only). Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone-only respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, education, region, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2009 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in continental U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx?version=print

Exposing the Think Tank Culture: Secrets of the Ruling Class

Sam Smith

While Wikileaks has begun to reveal some important state secrets, that's not the only thing that is making the establishment extremely nervous. Another huge problem is that the documents are providing a chain of evidence illustrating that the people running our government are not only frequently stupid, corrupt, and/or dishonest, but that in certain fields such as foreign policy, this is dominant rather than deviant behavior. Thus it is not just secrecy that is under attack but a whole culture of impunity.
While this is already a widely held view among many ordinary folk, from the perspective of the ruling class, documentation is much more dangerous than mere opinion. Paper work is truly scary.
If this all sounds slightly familiar, a description of an old movie may help:
"Upon their triumphant return to the Emerald City, Toto exposes the Wizard as a fraud, opening a curtain and revealing a non-magical man operating a giant console of wheels and levers."
Not a bad description of the way Washington works these days.
To be sure, Wikileaks also reveals some honest people trying to do honest things.
But the rules of the game are that power and honesty are generally mutually exclusive, a point gently made by the Independent describing Britain's former drug czar's conversion to legalization: "Mr Ainsworth said his departure from the frontbenches now gave him the freedom to express his view that the 'war on drugs has been nothing short of a disaster.'"
In other words, while holding public office he was not allowed to reveal that the war on drugs has been nothing short of a disaster. It is hard to fit such a rule into a definition of functioning democracy.
To make such a prohibition truly work, however, you need to have only a relatively few people in on the secret and not, say, two million military personnel with the proper Internet passwords.
This is the further damage that Wikileaks has done. It turns out that a private in Iraq can know more state secrets than most members of the club known as the Washington establishment. All those years in the Ivy League, all those lunches at the Metropolitan Club, all those boring lectures at think tanks undone by a few CDs and USB drives.
Washington's culture has long been premised on a small number of people sharing power, lunch and secrets, projecting - with the aid of the sycophantic scribes of the media - an aura of competence and wisdom.
This is a culture which causes the thoroughly embedded Daily Beast to lead a story with the line, "As the world mourns Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. . ."
To imagine that "the world" mourning Richard Holbrooke requires a global perspective that borders on the microscopic, but that is how America's ruling class thinks.
The idea that a mere private in the military and some Australian nut could so thoroughly blow their comfortable cover is, to it, truly shaking.
Wikileaks has thus not only exposed state secrets but also the Wizards of Washington, and it's probably the latter revelation that these wizards hate the most.

http://www.counterpunch.org/smith12212010.html

The Economic Crisis and the State of Economics: Waiting for a New Economic Theory

Sasan Fayazmanesh

Economic theories, for the most part, have emerged in response to particular social situations or governmental policies. For example, Francoise Quesnay’s 18th century Tableau Economique came into being in reaction to the plight of the French peasantry, excessive taxation, and government regulation that followed mercantilist teachings. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” theory similarly appeared as a response to mercantilist restrictions. It also corresponded to the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, when inventions and innovations made England relatively prosperous. Thomas Robert Malthus’s population and glut theories emerged in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, when migration of peasants to the cities, unemployment, and poverty became rampant. Karl Marx’s version of the labor theory of value was a response to the revolutionary movements in 19th century Europe, as exemplified by the 1848 uprising and the 1871 Paris Commune. John Maynard Keynes’s “general theory” was developed in the midst of the Great Depression and was a response to the laissez faire economics and policies that prevailed at the time.
It is too early to see if the recent economic crisis—which started in the financial sector of the economy and spread to the productive side—will produce any novel theories. What we have seen so far is different economists reciting some old theories and advocating corresponding remedies.  This is exemplified by three groups of economists, ranging from the most ardent supporters of laissez faire to those who see no future for capitalism.
The free market advocates still fall back on the marginalist or “neoclassical” theories that have dominated economic teaching since the end of the 19th century (the term “neoclassical” is a misnomer, but it is widely used). This unreal, a-historical theory started not with analyzing any real economy or human behavior, but with certain concepts in mathematical physics. The marginalists’ bizarre point of departure then led to a peculiar concept of the market that the proponents of laissez faire found quite useful. A market in this theory consists of two curves, a supply curve and a demand curve. “Equilibrium price” is where these two curves meet. Left alone, all such markets will self-adjust and bring about the equilibrium price. This holds for the “labor market” as well, where the equilibrium real wage will bring about full employment. It also holds for the so-called capital market, where the interest rate is determined. Given this self-adjusting mechanism, anything that interferes with the market, such as government or central bank intervention, is considered to be undesirable. Government deficit spending merely results in higher interest rates, and monetary policy ends with price changes, particularly inflation, if the money supply increases. In either case, the “real variables,” such as the level of employment or real output of goods and services, remain intact. In this happy, serene world there is never any crisis, especially a monetary crisis. Actually, in such a world there is no need for money, since all variables are real and money is just a “veil.” Also, in this tranquil and trouble-free land there are no classes, no workers no capitalists; there are only consumers and producers, getting along happily ever after. 
When the current crisis began and the capitalist world economy appeared to be on the brink of another disaster, the proponents of the neoclassical theory trembled at first. They retreated and abandoned their usual arguments concerning the glory of unfettered markets.  However, now that falling into the abyss of another depression appears less likely, they are back to the theories of leaving the market alone, reducing taxes for the captains of industry and finance and cutting spending when it comes to the working class.
At odds with these free marketeers are various shades of economists whose roots can be traced to Keynes.  Keynes clearly saw the incompatibility between the neoclassical theories and the real world, particularly during the Great Depression. He criticized certain laissez faire aspects of these theories and ultimately advocated for fiscal and monetary policies.  Yet, since he was educated in the same neoclassical school, his criticism of these theories was halfhearted and did not shake the foundation of the school. A few critical notes at the beginning of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) were followed by some theories that were incomplete, underdeveloped and ambiguous. The result was many possible interpretations of his theories and their ultimate subsumption under the “neoclassical synthesis,” a combination of the old-fashioned neoclassical theories, called microeconomics, and Keynesian theories, called macroeconomics. This hodgepodge of theories became, and continues to be, the regular staple of economics students.  
The ambiguities and lacunae in The General Theory also allowed for very different policy prescriptions.  Take, for example, Keynes’s theory of the “multiplier,” a theory that looks at the stimulating effect of spending, particularly government expenditures, on output and employment.  The theory was ambiguous enough when Keynes borrowed it from another economist, R. F. Kahn, but Keynes added to the ambiguity by stating: 
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again . . . there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is.
This seemed to imply that it made no difference if government spending was on useful things or wasteful things.  Actually, a number of other comments in The General Theory support this indifference. For example, just before the above passage Keynes simply stated: “Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth, if the education of our statesmen on the principles of the classical economics stands in the way of anything better.” Such statements made “military Keynesianism,” or warfare, an acceptable form of economic policy.  To this day, the followers of Keynes are unclear as to whether going to war is good for the economy and a stimulant or bad for the economy and a drag. Thus, we see some individuals advocating the start of yet another war in the Middle East as a way to rescue the US economy and some opposing the wars already in progress by pointing out their overall costs and how such costs are destroying the economy.
In addition, the silences in The General Theory allowed for the simultaneous existence of different types of Keynesian economists.  Even though all such economists agree on the need for fiscal and monetary policy, they do not agree on the limit of such policies and the exact method of pursuing them.  For example, liberal Keynesians—such as the “Post-Keynesians” who try to distance themselves from the neoclassical teachings—and conservative Keynesians—such as the “New Keynesians” who are quite eclectic in their theories—are often at odds with one another as to how high the deficit can go or what steps the Federal Reserve System should take.  They also disagree over such matters as how much regulation the financial sector of the economy needs. Yet, the squabbles between different types of Keynesians are quarrels within the family.  All Keynesians, similar to Keynes, believe in saving capitalism from itself; reform, and not revolution, is their aim. 
This brings us to the Marxist economists who, when it comes to solving the ills of the capitalist society, believe in revolution and not just reform.  For these economists a little more or a little less deficit spending, or tinkering with the money supply, will not solve the long-term problems of capitalism, particularly when it comes to the current worldwide economic crisis. Neither would the financial woes of the capitalist economy be solved by more regulation. 
In their arguments, most Marxist economists fall back on Marx’s mature writings, particularly his Capital, the first volume of which was published in 1867.  Setting aside the fact that Marx’s economic project was never finished and that his labor theory of value has always been the subject of controversy, Marx’s work is one of the few economic writings that actually tries to address the issue of economic crises.  In Capital there are two major theories of crisis, one cyclical and another secular. The first deals with disproportionality or imbalances between different sectors of the economy, that is, between the sectors that produce “capital goods” and “consumer goods.” Marx’s second theory deals with the tendency for the rate of profit to fall over the long haul. However, neither of these theories explains the current economic crisis.  It is, of course, true that in Marx’s theory of capitalist economy money plays a central role in production and could therefore cause crisis at various moments. But, there is no detailed and comprehensive theory of money and credit in his theory that would enable us to deal with modern monetary problems.
Of course, one should not expect theories that were developed in the middle of the 19th century to explain unique economic crises in the 21st century. This is particularly true if one believes, as any good Marxist economist should, that capitalism continuously evolves and poses new problems.  Thus, any theory trying to explain an evolving economy must itself evolve and grow. That, however, does not appear to be the case when it comes to Marxian economics. Very little has changed in this field since Marx wrote his Capital, as is evident from various books that have been recently published by Marxist economists, as well as the discussions and debates that are going on between these economists.  
There is another major problem with the application of Marx’s theory to the recent economic crisis. Given the period in which it was written, Marx’s Capital was not about reform, but was about revolution, a socialist revolution. The work was meant to sound the death knell of “capitalist private property,” the expropriation of “expropriators.” And the sound was supposed to be heard in the most advanced capitalist country, where forces of production had grown so much that they were no longer compatible with the relations of production. Presumably, this would have been England, where the workers would have established the first socialist economy.  What a socialist economy might look like, however, was never delineated by Marx beyond a short and vague sketch in the Gotha Program written in 1875. Such a revolution never happened, and a socialist society was never established (setting aside, of course, the Russian Revolution of 1917, when in a relatively less developed country some revolutionary intellectuals, in the name of workers, came to power and presumably established “state capitalism”).   
Nearly a century and a half later, there is no sign of workers’ uprisings in any part of the globe, particularly in advanced capitalist countries. We also have no idea, beyond that discussed in the Gotha Program, what a socialist society might look like.  Thus, waiting for the working class to rise, put an end to a chronically sick social system, and establish a new order does not appear to be feasible in the near future, unless one has a strong set of religious beliefs, as some “Marxists” do.
What is to be done? Should we leave the markets alone, as marginalist economists argue, even though we know that their two-curve markets have never existed and, historically, when markets were left alone they always fell into crisis? Or should we rely on increasing budget deficit and easy money policy to get us out of the present economic conundrum, as Keynesians advocate? In the latter case, which Keynesians should we listen to and why, knowing full well that none of the renowned Keynesians of our time predicted the 2008 crisis that brought the US economy to the brink of depression? Or should we wait and hope for workers’ uprisings to end the ills of the capitalist economy once and for all, as some Marxist economists are still hoping for, even though there are no signs of such uprisings anywhere in the world?
It seems that none of the prevailing economic theories provide a viable option for understanding and dealing with the current economic woes. Looking back at the history of economic thought and emergence of new theories at particular historical conjunctions, one can only hope that the current worldwide economic slump will generate new ways of thinking and new theories.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan12212010.html

Sarkozy's Strategy of Violence: The French State Prepares for Class War

Larry Portis

"Bring the War home.”  Here was a slogan that resonated throughout the Vietnam War era. It was a good formula, and temporarily successful in that it expressed and reinforced combativeness on the part of those who contested the war. The idea was that the anti-war movement must force the state to confront, within the United States and other western, industrialized countries, a mirror image of its imperialist actions abroad.
In France, today, this idea is taking a surprising turn. It is the French president who is bringing the war home.
One of the particularities of France has been that the propensity to go out into the streets to fight oppressive institutions is accepted as part of a long established political tradition. This is still the case. But another particularity of this country is the tradition of state repression. If the contemporary history of France is punctuated by revolts and revolutions, it should not be forgotten that bloody crushing of popular movements followed the events of 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871 and 1936. Overseas, the French military carried out genocidal “pacifications” of populations in Indochina, Morocco, Algeria and Madagascar that have been emulated by other imperialist states, with the United States in the lead.
In a country once called the “political laboratory of the world” (by Karl Marx), the present French government is quickening the pace towards the creation of a “police state” in which the forces of repression are not only centralized but also militarized in the strictest sense of the word. The French state is now perfecting its police power in dealing with “civil disturbances” by militarizing population control.
There are two models for this effort. The first is the USA PATRIOT ACT that centralized “intelligence” agencies under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security and erased the distinction between international intervention and domestic policing. The second is the organization of the national security forces in Israel, where the operative principle is the occupation of hostile territory.
The most serious step in the centralization and militarization of the police occurred in July 2010. It was then that the National Assembly enacted into law Nicolas Sarkozy’s proposal to give the Ministry of the Interior financial control over the famous Gendarmes, traditionally considered to be part of military defense, but in reality acting outside the cities as a law enforcement force.
From 1921, the Gendarmerie gained special status as a special military corps with an ambiguous kind of autonomy. They were not called upon to engage in crowd control or in real military operations. They are part of the military establishment, but not the regular army. In general, the gendarmes have enjoyed a reputation as being relatively independent of political interference. Since the 1960s—and a series of incredibly popular films staring the beloved Louis de Funes—the gendarmes entered contemporary folklore as the most respected law enforcement agency in France.
But now their independence is seriously compromised, and so will be the respect in which they are held. Not only has Sarkozy proposed that a contingent of Gendarmes be sent to Afghanistan, his incorporation of them into the police means that the distinction upheld until now between public service and repression of the population is effectively obliterated.
Sarkozy has also instituted a quota system—a set of quantitative performance standards—that has pushed the police to arrest people in ever-increasing numbers.
Now, in France, people can be held in detention for 24 to 48 hours without being formally charged, a practice called garde à vue (provisional detention). The idea is that, during this time, the police will be able to question and investigate a suspect without interference. In other words, in the absence of any principle of habeas corpus, detention is used to extract confessions or to simply punish those who show lack of respect for police authority.
In recent years the practice has reached such proportions that citizens groups have been created to act against it. In 2009, approximately 900,000 people were detained in this way (out of a population of 65 million). This is almost double the number so detained during the year previous to Sarkozy’s election in May 2007. It is frequent that the police beat people who express indignation when they are arrested or incarcerated. It is invariably claimed that they violently resisted, injuring a policeperson, who then files a complaint against the real victim. Protesting by-standers also frequently receive this treatment. As Amnesty International observed in its annual reports of 2005 and 2009: “Amnesty International must conclude that, at the present time in France, law-enforcement agents enjoy practical impunity.”
The connection with Israel is paramount in Sarkozy’s strategy. Although no official pronouncements have been made, a highly respected weekly newspaper, Le Canard enchaîné, has reported rumors from the ranks of French internal security forces that the Israeli national police, the 26,000-member-strong Mishtara, is now the model, given its fusion of population control, policing powers, intelligence activities and counter-terrorism operations.
Already in 2005, after days of insurrection in some French suburbs, Israeli experts in urban counter-guerilla operations reportedly visited Paris, presumably at the behest of the French authorities (Sarkozy was then Minister of the Interior). In June 2010, it was reported that officers of the Israeli army participated in combat simulations in France and that their French counterparts would soon go to Israel “for combat training in inhabited zones”.
Israeli technology is another dimension of this collaboration, although it is not yet considered that the French population is ready to accept some of the more interesting innovations. For example, the Shofar (Hebrew for a trumpet made of a ram’s horn), an Israeli “sound cannon” that emits a noise comparable to a fighter jet flying directly over your head (145 decibels) was rejected. Colonel Didier Quenelle of the Gendarmerie in the Saint Astier (Dordogne) training center explained to Hacène Belmessous in January 2010 (cited in Belmessous’ book Opération Banlieues, 2010) that he refused to test the device. However, Quenelle’s new superiors have not ruled it out. “We concluded that many demonstrators of different ages would be injured and that the capacity of our fellow citizens to accept such a tool seems problematical,” it was said in an official report, which nevertheless went on to call for tests. “Rubber bullets”, on the other hand, have been accepted.
Why is the French government gearing up for combat operations in cities? In part it is due to the phobias and activism of Nicolas Sarkozy, although the structural instability of the French economy and expected social explosions—such as those breaking out in Greece, England, Ireland and elsewhere—underlie the general situation.
In fact, Nicolas Sarkozy has now been responsible for law enforcement in France for more than eight years. And since he became Minister of the Interior in 2002, police brutality has been increasing. It is therefore not surprising that “security” issues are central in his policies. Ignoring any criticism that he is responsible for the growing insecurity, his tactic is to claim that crime is on the increase and that penalties must be increased. For him, those who protest against police actions are irresponsible at best, and likely part of the problem in some more substantive way.
Here is a sketchy chronicle of some of Sarkozy’s more recent exploits.
On October 26, 2005, still minister of the interior, but already campaigning for the presidency, Sarkozy made a surprise visit to the suburban town of Argenteuil to visit the local police station. Objective: to show his unqualified support for the police. Finding himself hassled by 200 young residents, but surrounded by riot police guards, he declared to the ubiquitous cameras that he was going to get rid of this “racaille” (literally “scum”), meaning the young people of the suburbs where working-class people are concentrated including, naturally, a high proportion of immigrant workers of different generations and their children.
The next day, in Clichy-sous-Bois, another suburban community, two teenagers were electrocuted trying to hide from police behind a wire fence enclosing an electrical power transformer. The police claimed they were investigating thieves but did not chase the boys, a claim denied by witnesses whose testimony was subsequently confirmed. The boys were playing soccer when approached, and ran because of a generalized fear of the police and the all-too-frequent interrogations inflicted on young males in the neighborhood. Six days of rioting ensued during which the police and residents engaged in continuous clashes.
After Sarkozy was elected president on May 6, 2007, three nights of rioting followed in cities throughout France during which 1,400 automobiles were burned, store windows were smashed and other damage occasioned.
On November 25, 2007, riots broke out in Villiers-le-Bel, another suburb north of Paris. Two nights of combat between the police and young residents followed the deaths of two teenagers on a mini motorcycle when a pursuing police patrol car ran into them. (It later came out that the police had lied about the speed their vehicle was traveling when it ran over the teenagers.) Around 100 police and firemen were injured. Shots were fired at the police from high-rise buildings.
In response to the events of the previous November, on February 18, 2008 33 people were arrested at dawn by no less than 1,100 police of different types who converged on a residential complex composed of high-rise apartment buildings. The consequences are telling for the pursuit of justice. Six months later, in July 2010, five of the 33 young people arrested were sentenced to 3 to 5 years in prison on the strength of testimony from one anonymous informer who received a monetary bounty for his or her efforts.
But here a paradox must be mentioned. After all, Sarkozy was elected by 54 per cent of those voting in the May 2007 election. And there were many people in the suburbs believing Sarkozy would take action to make their neighborhoods more secure. In reality, he was largely responsible for this violence. What people didn’t understand is that Sarkozy needs to be able to point to insecurity in order to justify his repressive and regressive policies.
This has now changed. Sarkozy is less popular with such people, but it is too late. Now he has an absolute majority in the National Assembly, where his proposed laws and policies are rubber-stamped.
Yet even before the election Sarkozy was unpopular with people in general. After five years of Sarkozy as Minister of the Interior—or the premier flic (tr. “top cop”) in France—most residents in the poor suburbs already understood. The 35 per cent who voted for him there certainly helped push him over the top and win the election. But the others detest him to the point that Sarkozy has been unable to visit their neighborhoods for fear of causing riots.
This is now true everywhere in France. Wherever Sarkozy goes, poor suburb or not, the area he visits is emptied and sealed-off from the population. When a crowd is needed, people are generally recruited from his political party—the UMP, Union for a Popular Movement—and the participants are given “invitations” that allow them to go through police barriers! Everyone else—quite rightly considered potential protesters—are held blocks away behind police barricades. Tear gas and clubs are used in the event of attempts to break through the barriers.
The demonstrations against the reform of the retirement system in October and November 2010 provided additional evidence of militarizing urban population control. In Lyon, the second largest city in France, scenes of guerilla warfare were enacted by hundreds of robocops pitted against adolescents from the suburbs who came especially to fight the police. Estimates range from 1,300 to 1,600 youths of both sexes present at any one time who joined the tens of thousands of people protesting against the regressive reforms. It appears as if the government wishes to provoke this combat so as to advance military control over the population.
At times during these events, the police completely enclosed the central square in Lyon—the Place Bellecour—refusing to let people leave. The technique of sealing off areas has also been used in Paris and other cities in recent demonstrations. Sometimes people, unable to leave the area, are forced into underground subway stations, only to find riot police waiting for them when they arrive.
The night of June 24, 2010, Sarkozy made an unannounced midnight visit to the suburban city of St. Denis (north of Paris) with television cameras in tow for the best photo ops. A young (21 years old) black man happened to see him and immediately called out: “Va te faire enculer, connard! C’est chez moi ici!”  (tr. “Go fuck yourself, asshole! This is where I live!”). Police guards immediately jumped on him. The young man’s nose was broken and he was arrested. A cameraman working for one of the pubic television channels was also struck when he tried to film the scene.
It is possible that Sarkozy was not displeased with this incident. The insult proffered him by a young black man with (it was later learned) an Arabic name can be presented as more evidence that young residents of the “ethnic” ghettoes are cultural (if not “racial”) barbarians having no respect for institutions and their representatives. Moreover, the young man openly claimed that his neighborhood is off-limits to the French president. So much the better, Sarkozy may have thought: it justifies his crusade to momentarily capture territory and create the illusion of pacifying the rabble.
And this is the whole point: Sarkozy and his government are re-conceptualizing the territory of France into occupied and unoccupied zones. Like other heads of state, he needs a permanent war against an ill-defined but stigmatized enemy in order to justify his authority. It is significant that military planners are now re-evaluating the role of the French army in the “battle of Algiers” in the late 1950s. Long considered a model for Israel in the Occupied Territories of Palestine, and for the United States in Iraq, the lessons of the murderous occupation of the Casbah in Algiers are now taken positively by strategists in France, for France.
What is really the problem in the French suburbs? Well, it was announced on December 14, 2010 that 43 per cent of young males and 37 per cent of young females in the suburban cities are unemployed. Here is where “ethic” youth (overwhelmingly born in France) with few future prospects are concentrated, and this is the population Sarkozy has designated as scapegoats.
In 2002, Sarkozy ended the policy of the previous (socialist) government of providing more police presence in the neighborhoods with the objectives of integrating the police into the local community and reducing tensions. Instead, Sarkozy has pulled police out of the suburban ghettos, preferring to make punitive military “incursions” into them. By now, it should be clear why.

http://www.counterpunch.org/portis12212010.html

Industrie chimique et cancers, le cercle infernal

Christelle Destombes 

Dow Chemical, BASF, Bayer, Monsanto, Dupont … Ces géants de l'industrie chimique, à l'origine de nombreux cancers, fabriquent aussi les traitements pour ces mêmes maladies. Le documentaire « The Idiot Cycle » décortique ces liens. Rencontre avec la réalisatrice franco-hispano-canadienne Emmanuelle Schick-Garcia.
Le pire est à venir, craint la réalisatrice, alors que ces compagnies partent désormais à l'assaut des biotechnologies, nous rejouant le mythe du progrès déjà vendu avec le plastique… (Voir la bande-annonce)
Projeté dans de nombreux festivals, ce film autoproduit -et le site dédié- propose des actions en vue de limiter l'exposition aux produits cancérigènes. Rencontre avec une femme qui sait que chacun d'entre nous peut refuser de prendre part à ce cercle absurde.
Christelle Destombes : Qu'est-ce qui a déclenché ce travail ?
Emmanuelle Schick-Garcia : C'est le cancer de ma mère. Elle avait 49 ans, ne buvait pas, ne fumait pas, faisait du sport… A l'époque, j'étais à l'école de cinéma et ma sœur en médecine, elle est devenue docteure et j'ai fait ce film.
La moitié de mes amis ont perdu leurs parents d'un cancer et j'avais aussi dans mon entourage des amis atteints très jeunes : l'un est mort d'un cancer de la langue à 22 ans, l'autre d'un cancer à l'estomac… C'est ce qui a déclenché le film.
Pendant combien de temps avez-vous fait des recherches ?
Près de dix ans. Il y a sept ans, j'ai commencé à lire des études scientifiques, à vérifier qui les faisait et avec quel argent, qui finançait les associations et les universités… Les trois dernières années, j'ai vraiment plongé dans la préparation du film.
Au départ, je me suis préoccupée des causes du cancer, je n'ai pas commencé l'enquête en me disant : « Les gens qui produisent des cancérigènes sont les mêmes que ceux qui font les traitements, et c'est la raison pour laquelle on ne nous parle pas des causes du cancer. »
On dit toujours qu'il y a d'énormes doutes sur les causes des cancers, alors que 15% seulement sont héréditaires. Et il y a une grande confusion chez les gens : « mutation génétique » ne signifie pas « héréditaire », elle peut être induite par le fait de respirer du benzène et transmise à un enfant sans que ce soit héréditaire. Idem pour les dioxines, qui passent la barrière du fœtus. Mais les docteurs sont là pour traiter la maladie, ils n'abordent pas les causes du cancer.
Vous pensez qu'il n'y a pas assez de recherches scientifiques ?
En 1998, on répertoriait 18 millions de produits chimiques, pas forcément commercialisés. Aujourd'hui, il y en a 50 millions dont 100 000 utilisés quotidiennement. Ne pas faire de tests sur ces produits carcinogènes n'a aucun sens. Faire de vraies études sur ces produits prend trois ans et coûte 2 millions de dollars…
Ce n'est rien comparé au coût payé par la société pour nettoyer, dépolluer et traiter les gens qui ont des cancers ! Mais ce n'est pas intéressant pour les hommes d'affaires.
En France, la compagnie qui a produit l'amiante est aussi celle qui dépollue : ils sont gagnants économiquement et, de plus, ils ressemblent à des héros parce qu'ils trouvent une solution à un problème qu'ils ont posé… Pour le film, on a rencontré la fondation Ramazzini, le seul laboratoire au monde à faire des tests extrêmement pointus.
Ils attendent la fin de vie du rat, contrairement à d'autres qui tuent les rats à l'âge de 3 ans. Ils regardent tous les organes, pas seulement le foie ou le cerveau. Et ils sont indépendants, financés par les citoyens. Les compagnies sont poussées par la compétition, elles veulent être les premières sur les marchés, les premières à breveter… D'où leur peu d'intérêt pour les études. Les gouvernements devraient imposer des tests de trois ans.
Vous dénoncez également le lobbying exercé par les industriels dans votre film…
En 1971, le ministère de la Justice américain a dit aux industriels qu'il fallait qu'ils agissent avant que l'opinion publique ne se tourne contre eux. Il y avait la guerre du Vietnam, la Corée et Dow Chemical fabriquait des armes pour le gouvernement américain, gérait l'extension d'une centrale nucléaire à Rocky Flat… Cet homme a indiqué quels leviers d'opinion utiliser : chercheurs, journalistes, académiciens.
On voit ce que ça donne : les universités financées par ces compagnies, les chercheurs consultants dans les entreprises, les journalistes qui copient les communiqués de presse mot pour mot. C'est une telle corruption invisible, car tout le monde a l'impression de vivre dans une démocratie, mais il y a de réels conflits d'intérêt et il faut décoder l'information.
Le lobbying qui se fait à Bruxelles participe du même schéma ; avant, il y avait 27 Etats, c'était vraiment démocratique. Maintenant, une personne décide pour le continent. Les lobbyistes ne mettent la pression que sur une ou deux personnes, c'est beaucoup plus intéressant pour eux, y compris financièrement.
Vous avez essayé de rencontrer les industriels…
On a beaucoup parlé aux porte-parole d'associations dont les compagnies sont membres. Pour le reste, ils ont refusé les demandes d'interview… Ils ont leurs journalistes préférés, leurs émissions de télé préférées où ils savent qu'ils ne seront pas inquiétés.
Nous avons interviewé Chantal Jouanno, ministre du gouvernement Fillon, mais on ne l'a pas mise dans le film, car les politiciens disent toujours la même chose : « Si on voit un problème, on va agir. » Mais il fallait agir il y a vingt ans !
Et c'est difficile pour les élus : les hommes politiques de gauche comme de droite sont subventionnés par des hommes d'affaires. Surtout au Canada et aux Etats-Unis, où leur soutien est nécessaire pour faire une campagne électorale et être élus.
Vous êtes engagée personnellement ?
Depuis petite. Un des amis de mon père était le fondateur de Greenpeace, Bob Hunter, mort d'un cancer justement. J'ai grandi à Vancouver dans une ambiance très engagée : il y avait Greenpeace, Adbusters, SeaS hepherd. Même à l'école, les professeurs nous parlaient de pollution.
La première manif que j'ai faite, j'avais 11 ans, c'était contre McDonald qui utilisait des polystyrènes extrudés (styrofoam).
Ensuite, j'ai ramassé des feuilles chez mes voisins pour envoyer de l'argent contre la déforestation en Amazonie… Mais je me suis aperçue que les associations pouvaient prendre de l'argent sale ou se dévoyer en vendant des objets (WWF met son logo sur des casseroles ! ), alors j'ai préféré m'éloigner et rester indépendante. Et changer moi-même ma façon de vivre, mes amis et focaliser mes moyens sur des films qui sont complètement indépendants.
Et au quotidien ?
Je n'ai plus de voiture depuis six ans, je n'ai plus de télé, je mange bio, je ne porte pas de maquillage, je ne bois pas de café… On pense que ce sont de grands changements, mais en fait c'est juste une modification des habitudes inculquées par la publicité. Consommer tous ces trucs ne nous rend pas plus heureux. C'est plus important de réfléchir à ses choix, chacun à son niveau : est-ce que j'ai vraiment besoin d'une grande maison à deux heures de distance de mon travail ?
Vous êtes pessimiste après ce documentaire ?
Un peu, les choses sont pires que ce que je pensais. En même temps, je suis optimiste : j'ai fait des changements, je veux faire des choses pour l'avenir, pour que d'autres personnes n'aient pas le cancer à 22 ans. Après tout, perdre une voiture, on ne s'en rend plus compte au bout d'une semaine. Alors que les personnes qu'on aime et qu'on a perdues, on y pense tous les jours. Il faut rétablir le sens des priorités.
Depuis que le film est sorti, je rencontre beaucoup de gens exceptionnels, qui font des choses dans leur village, qui dépensent leur temps et leur énergie, et ça me rassure. Ils n'ont pas besoin d'être applaudis comme Bill Gates, d'avoir leur photo dans le journal, ils le font pour les gens qu'ils aiment, leurs voisins, leur famille. C'est de ces gens-là dont on devrait parler.
Un jour j'ai rencontré une grand-mère de 83 ans qui, après avoir vu un film sur les produits ménagers, était retournée à sa façon traditionnelle de faire : couper de la lavande, la mettre en sachets. Elle avait arrêté d'acheter des lessives au supermarché. A son âge, elle est encore curieuse, intéressée et elle agit. Franchement, n'importe qui peut le faire, plutôt que de se préoccuper du shopping du jour.
En partenariat avec Minorités
En partenariat avec Minorités
► Interview réalisée pour le magazine Le Nouveau Consommateur n°37

http://www.rue89.com/planete89/2010/12/21/industrie-chimique-et-cancers-le-cercle-infernal-181646

Le juteux business des prisons

David Dufresne - auteur et co-réalisateur du webdocumntaire Prison Valley.

Gonzague Rambaud, journaliste indépendant, est co-auteur du livre Le Travail en prison. Enquête sur le business carcéral (Autrement, 2010). Il revient ici sur les non dits d’un secteur florissant. Où les sommes sont astronomiques, les à côtés peu reluisants et l’indifférence quasi totale.
Commençons par le commencement… les prisons semi privées en France, combien de divisions ?
La privatisation des prisons s’accélère et s’impose désormais comme le système économique privilégié pour administrer les geôles françaises. Une cinquantaine d’établissements pénitentiaires sur 197 fonctionnent aujourd’hui sur le modèle de la « gestion mixte ». Désormais, toutes les prisons qui sortiront de terre seront gérées en grande partie par des entreprises privées. Ainsi, hormis les fonctions régaliennes (direction, surveillance, greffe), le privé s’occupe de tout. Soit : la maintenance, l’entretien, la fourniture des fluides et des énergies, la restauration, l’hôtellerie, la buanderie, la « cantine », le transport, l’accueil des familles, la formation professionnelle et le travail des détenus.
En quoi les prisons privées sont-elles profitables aux grands groupes comme Gepsa (filiale de GDF-Suez) ou Siges (filiale de Sodexo). Autrement dit, comme ces consortiums gagnent-ils de l’argent avec les prisons ?
Un juteux business pour GDF-Suez et Sodexo, qui se partagent âprement ce marché depuis plus de vingt ans. Lors des derniers contrats, signés en novembre 2009, Sodexo a remporté la gestion de 27 nouvelles prisons, en plus des 9 établissements acquis lors des appels d’offres précédents. Un contrat de « quasiment un milliard d’euros » pour une période de huit ans, a indiqué Michel Landel, directeur général de Sodexo, lors de la présentation des résultats du groupe le 10 novembre 2009. La Chancellerie devient ainsi le premier client français de Sodexo ! En remportant un lot de six prisons, GDF-Suez devra se contenter d’un « petit » contrat global d’un montant de 22 235 760 euros. En 2007, lors des précédents contrats, la filiale de GDF-Suez affichait une santé financière insolente au point de reverser à ses actionnaires un dividende de 2,9 millions soit… 100 % du résultat net.
Un marché sur lequel surfe désormais le groupe Bouygues…
Marchant sur les traces de son mentor Albin Chalandon – garde des sceaux sous la première cohabitation (1986-1988) et initiateur des premiers contrats de gestion mixte en prison – Rachida Dati a signé le 19 février 2008, un partenariat public-privé (PPP) avec Bouygues Construction, chargé de concevoir, réaliser, financer, entretenir et gérer trois nouvelles prisons  (la maison d’arrêt de Nantes : 570 places, le centre pénitentiaire de Lille-Annoeullin : 688 places et le centre pénitentiaire de Réau en Île-de-France : 798 places) livrées d’ici à 2011. Ce contrat représente un loyer annuel de 48 millions d’euros pour les trois établissements, soit une valeur totale de 1,8 milliard d’euros pour une durée de contrat de 27 ans. Par ailleurs, notre livre révèle que depuis mars 2008, au centre pénitentiaire de Rennes, douze femmes détenues travaillent pour l’opérateur de téléphonie Bouygues Télécom…
Et l’État ? Quel est son intérêt financier dans cette collaboration avec le privé ? On sait, par exemple, qu’aux États-Unis, le  coût d’un prisonnier placé dans le secteur privé revient sur la durée plus cher qu’un prisonnier dans le public. Quels arguments l’État français use-t-il pour (se) convaincre du bien fondé de la privatisation ?
Le 19 février 2008, lors de la signature du contrat avec Bouygues, Rachida Dati, alors ministre de la Justice, déclarait que le partenariat public privé avait pour but de « diminuer le coût global, parce que le partenaire optimise toute la chaîne, depuis la conception jusqu’à l’exploitation », arguant que le ministère de la Justice confie « au secteur privé des responsabilités qu’il sait parfaitement assumer ». Un avis que ne partage pas la Cour des comptes : « Force est de constater que ce choix stratégique [de la gestion déléguée NDLR] n’a reposé ni sur des critères de coût ni sur l’appréciation effective des performances, alors qu’il engage durablement les finances publiques », lit-on dans un rapport publié en 2006.
Si les Sages de la rue Cambon ont reconnu que la gestion mixte était un peu « mieux contrôlée », ils épinglent – à nouveau – l’absence d’échelle de comparaison entre la gestion semi privée et la gestion publique, dans un rapport de juillet 2010. Ainsi, la Cour des comptes, préconise « d’élaborer une méthode fiable de comparaison entre la gestion déléguée et la gestion publique, en intégrant des indicateurs de coûts mais également de qualité de service ». En clair, rien ne prouve aujourd’hui que ce mode de gestion soit plus rentable pour l’Etat. En revanche, le PPP signé avec Bouygues permet à l’État de pas contracter de dette visible puisque c’est l’entreprise privée qui supporte le poids financier de l’investissement. Le coût des constructions de prisons n’apparait pas immédiatement, mais l’État paye toutefois un (onéreux) loyer durant près de 30 ans.
À vous lire, la gauche comme la droite sont plutôt sur la même longueur d’ondes à propos des partenariats publics/privés et ce malgré des rapports accablants dont vous venez de parlez… Comment expliquez-vous ce consensus: pour des raisons économiques (les prisons coûtent cher), par indifférence générale (qui se soucie des prisons ?), pour une autre raison ?
La privatisation des prisons s’ouvre avec la loi pénitentiaire du 22 juin 1987, initiée par Albin Chalandon. Les premiers contrats ont été signés en 1989, ils ont ensuite été reconduits en en 1997, 2002 puis 2009. Certes, le gouvernement de Lionel Jospin ne s’est pas opposé, entre 1997 et 2002, à ce mode de gestion. Toutefois, à propos des partenariats publics privés, qui englobent notamment la conception, le financement, et la réalisation – compétences qui n’apparaissent pas dans les contrats dits de « gestion mixte » signés par Sodexo et GDF-Suez notamment – Marylise Lebranchu, ancienne garde des sceaux de Lionel Jospin, est très sévère. Interviewée dans notre livre, elle fustige le procédé en ces termes : « Quand on a un loyer de 27 ans, on a une dette, donc, je crois qu’on joue sur une nomenclature budgétaire pour avoir une dette moins forte. Mais en fait, c’est la même chose. D’autre part, la prestation ne peut que coûter plus cher. Quand vous rémunérez un capital en plus, ça vous coûtera plus cher. Il n’y a donc pas de gain sur les finances publiques dans un PPP. »
On sait qu’il existe un risque de collusion entre la politique pénale d’un pays et les intérêts économiques de certains acteurs des prisons privées. Aux États-Unis, plusieurs leaders du secteur dépensent ainsi des millions de dollars pour un durcissement des peines. Des juges de Pennsylvanie ont même reconnu avoir perçu des pots de vins pour envoyer des gamins en taule. En France, quels sont les risques ?
Le cas de ces deux magistrats américains qui ont reconnu avoir envoyé des centaines d’enfants et d’adolescents en prison entre 2000 et 2007, en échange de 2,6 millions de dollars de pots-de-vin, payés par les deux entreprises gérant des centres de détention, n’a heureusement pas son équivalent en France. Toutefois, la réalité économique oblige à souligner que les bénéfices des gestionnaires privés de prisons françaises gonflent… à mesure que les prisons se remplissent.  Astucieusement, les entreprises privées infligent au ministère de la Justice des pénalités lorsque le taux d’occupation des prisons co-gérées dépasse 120 %, un taux facilement atteint en maison d’arrêt notamment. Alors que la population écrouée a augmenté de pratiquement 50 % entre 2001 et aujourd’hui, le durcissement de la politique pénale pourrait bien arranger les affaires des gestionnaires privés.
Plusieurs prisons semi-privées sorties de terre récemment en France ont connu des problèmes de conception (système défectueux de serrures ou de réseau électrique à la centrale de Mont-de-Marsan). Pour certains, les exigences de rentabilité des entreprises privées sont incompatibles avec les besoins de qualité. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
Inauguré le 19 janvier 2009 par Rachida Dati et le Premier ministre François Fillon, le centre de détention de Roanne, conçu, construit et financé par Eiffage, a souffert de graves malfaçons à sa livraison : des serrures électriques extérieures qui ne fonctionnent pas, des infiltrations d’eau, des murs fendillés, des grilles de cour de promenade trop courtes, etc. Cette longue liste rappelle les déboires de la prison de Mont-de-Marsan. Construit par Bouygues et inauguré le 20 novembre 2008, ce centre pénitentiaire avait été plongé dans le noir, trois semaines après son ouverture, à la suite d’une panne générale d’électricité, qui avait conduit à évacuer les 87 détenus de cette prison (presque) rutilante, livrée à l’heure et dans des temps record.
Pour éviter les lourdes pénalités financières en cas de délais de livraison non satisfaits, ces groupes de BTP (Eiffage, Quille et Bouygues Construction) confondent vitesse et précipitation. Pour des questions de rentabilité, les entreprises privées respectent le cahier des charges au minimum. Raison pour laquelle la Cour des comptes, dans son un rapport de juillet 2010, recommande d’élaborer une méthode fiable de comparaison entre la gestion déléguée et la gestion publique, « en intégrant des indicateurs de coûts mais également de qualité de service ».
Comment voyez-vous le fait que l’État français se réserve ses fonctions régaliennes (à savoir la direction des prisons, la surveillance des détenus, et le greffe)? Est-ce le moindre des garde fous ou un simple cache sexe d’un marché qui ne dit pas son nom ?
Je ne pense pas que cela soit un « cache sexe », c’est plutôt un garde-fou qui ne sera pas levé de sitôt. Privatiser, par exemple, les fonctions de surveillance et de direction serait très mal perçu et serait difficile à faire passer à l’Assemblée Nationale et au Sénat, et dans une grande partie de l’opinion. Des surveillants armés et salariés d’un groupe privé de surveillance ? Ce n’est pas pour tout de suite, à mon avis.
Dans votre livre, vous dressez un constat sévère: « côté détenus, la plus-value en termes de travail et de formation professionnelle se perçoit difficilement [...] : l’offre de travail qualifiant, le nombre et la qualité des formations professionnelles fait tout autant défaut dans les prisons privées [que publiques] » Pouvez-vous en dire plus ?
Je fais ici allusion au travail et à la formation professionnelle des détenus, deux compétences déléguées aux entreprises privées, filiales de Sodexo, GDF-Suez, Bouygues, etc, dans les prisons semi-privatisées. Le travailleur-détenu évolue dans une zone de non droit dont la pierre angulaire se niche dans l’article 717-3 du code de procédure pénale. Lequel souligne expressément que « les relations de travail des personnes incarcérées ne font pas l’objet d’un contrat de travail » dans l’enceinte d’une prison. De fait, tous les droits attachés au contrat de travail disparaissent : pas de SMIC, pas d’indemnités chômage, de maladie ou d’accident du travail, pas de congés payés, ni de droit syndical. Un système totalement dérogatoire au droit commun qui permet aux entreprises de s’implanter en prison à moindre frais.
Pour des raisons d’image notamment, les entreprises privées, que nous citons dans le livre (EADS, BIC, Renault, Agnès B, Orange, Bouygues Telecom, etc.), s’abritent derrière une kyrielle de sous-traitants. Bien que le travail soit rémunéré, en moyenne, 3 euros brut de l’heure, en prison, l’offre est inférieure à la demande. Or, la gestion mixte devait en théorie favoriser la venue de donneurs d’ordre en prison, au prétexte que les groupements privés gestionnaires de prisons seraient de meilleurs interlocuteurs que l’administration pénitentiaire. Or, il n’en est rien. Les postes de travail font autant défaut dans les prisons publiques que dans les prisons semi-privées, durement frappées par la crise économique, notamment en raison de la désertion des sous-traitant automobiles, une des branches professionnelles les mieux implantés dans les ateliers pénitentiaires.

http://owni.fr/2010/11/23/interview-le-juteux-business-des-prisons/
Related Posts with Thumbnails