Jerusalem

un homenaje a los libros

the spirit for a new era?

in their own words

a curiosity (on how much time people have in their hands)

un homenaje paterno

wow.....

Protestas en los muros del facebook

"La píldora del día después ya es un aborto. Entonces me surgen algunas dudas desde el ámbito Jurídico: - La paja: Es homicidio premeditado? - El sexo oral: Es canibalismo? ... - Podemos considerar el coito interruptus como abandono de menor?... - Y que decir del preservativo? será homicidio por asfixia mecánica? - Y el sexo anal? Es mandar los hijos a la mierda? Copia esto en tu muro para que los católicos se preocupen mas por los curas pederastas y menos por el sexo!!! "


"Por que meter las imágenes horripilantes en paquetes de cigarrillos ? ¿Por qué no fotos de niños hambrientos en envases de McDonald ? ¿Por qué no animales torturados en productos cosméticos ? ¿Por qué no poner fotos de las víctimas de conductores ebrios, en botellas de cerveza y vino ? ¿Por qué no fotos de políticos deshonestos, ladrones disfrutando de nuestro dinero, en declaraciones de impuestos ? Aunque el 100% de ustedes estarán de acuerdo ! Apuesto a que el 99% no lo copia...."

Positive Advertising for Women

An example of taking responsibility and doing sthg about it

I’ve written so many articles over the years laying bare and polemicising against the errors and idiocies of other people. This time, I am writing an article laying bare and polemicising against the errors and idiocies of myself. If you give it out, you have to take it. If you demand high standards of others, you have to be just as damning when you fail to uphold them yourself.

I did two wrong and stupid things. The first concerns some people I interviewed over the years. When I recorded and typed up any conversation, I found something odd: points that sounded perfectly clear when you heard them being spoken often don’t translate to the page. They can be quite confusing and unclear. When this happened, if the interviewee had made a similar point in their writing (or, much more rarely, when they were speaking to somebody else), I would use those words instead. At the time, I justified this to myself by saying I was giving the clearest possible representation of what the interviewee thought, in their most considered and clear words.

Related articles

• Independent columnist apologises for plagiarism
• Search the news archive for more stories

But I was wrong. An interview isn’t an X-ray of a person’s finest thoughts. It’s a report of an encounter. If you want to add material from elsewhere, there are conventions that let you do that. You write “she has said,” instead of “she says”. You write “as she told the New York Times” or “as she says in her book”, instead of just replacing the garbled chunk she said with the clear chunk she wrote or said elsewhere. If I had asked the many experienced colleagues I have here at The Independent – who have always been very generous with their time – they would have told me that, and they would have explained just how wrong I was. It was arrogant and stupid of me not to ask.

The other thing I did wrong was that several years ago I started to notice some things I didn’t like in the Wikipedia entry about me, so I took them out. To do that, I created a user-name that wasn’t my own. Using that user-name, I continued to edit my own Wikipedia entry and some other people’s too. I took out nasty passages about people I admire – like Polly Toynbee, George Monbiot, Deborah Orr and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I factually corrected some other entries about other people. But in a few instances, I edited the entries of people I had clashed with in ways that were juvenile or malicious: I called one of them anti-Semitic and homophobic, and the other a drunk. I am mortified to have done this, because it breaches the most basic ethical rule: don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you. I apologise to the latter group unreservedly and totally.

If it was the other way round – if a journalist I disapprove of had done something analogous – I’d be withering. I’d say, it’s not hard: get your quotes right, and don’t be mean about other people in a way you find painful when it’s directed at you. Spare me the self-pitying excuses. Plenty of people have your problems and pressures and none of your privileges, and they don’t do anything half as awful.

Good old Christian Love

re-learning History, understanding "the Other"

Get your rosaries off my ovaries

For all the liberal language, independent counselling is just an underhanded anti-abortion tactic
Suzanne Moore, Guardian.co.uk


[..] I know what having an abortion is like myself so I could make a terrible joke about it running in the family. Actually, my point is that abortion is a very common experience. Nor am I trying to suggest that the proposed amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill concerning counselling mean a return to these dark old days. The reason I am telling you all this is because I admired my mother's refusal to be ashamed of her own experience. Now this new breed of anti-abortionists snip round the edges of the process with their strategies of delay ... er, sorry, "independent counselling". But beware their language of care. This is not about care but about control. This control absolutely depends on shame: sexual shame. This shame keeps us quiet. Shame keeps us locked into individual guilt. Shame even makes us stupidly grateful that we are allowed to have any choice at all.

This whole debate around counselling pivots on the idea of deep and private shame, positing the idea of counselling being used to sell an evil procedure. Women are always "vulnerable" dupes, never simply adults who have made decisions. Some weird pension analogy has been brought in, though health care is nothing like it as advice and services do often come from the same people ie: doctors. [...]

There is little point trying to persuade those who are religiously opposed to abortion (though I am intrigued at the Catholic attitude to the foetus – miscarried babies are not buried as they are not baptised) but we can simply remind ourselves we are living in a largely secular democracy.

Loving the unborn more than the born is politically convenient, as the unborn do not have to be housed or educated or parented. [..]

We are repeatedly told this is an "emotive" issue. The new vocabulary of the anti-abortion lobby is full of vaguely feminist platitudes – not feminist enough to counsel the men who walk away from pregnancies but still. Underneath, we are fallen women, damaged goods and so terribly stupid that we can be persuaded to have a quick abortion by wicked charities. When we could be what? Wombs to provide babies for "proper couples" or go it alone as the root of all evil: single mothers?

This is nauseating. A vote of conscience? If MPs had one they would say it is not the business of the legislature to control women's reproduction. They would stop telling us what is "emotive" and ask what actually is. I didn't want counselling in order to have an abortion. I certainly did after a miscarriage – again an awfully common experience – but none was offered. No, instead let's bring on an army of "independent" zealots who can tell us that abortion leads to cancer, mental health issues and infertility, and sod the evidence that having a baby is more risky than having an abortion. Anyone who talks about how easy it is and how the reality is glossed over is ignorant. You have a scan. You know and see what you are doing. It's not a walk in the park but it is a huge relief. The emotive part is the enforced waiting.

Now the tactics are to further that wait. This is nothing short of cruelty dressed up in the language of concern. [..]

The relationship between money and happiness is surprisingly weak

Buy experiences instead of things;

buy many small pleasures instead of a few big ones;

pay now for things you can look forward to and enjoy later.

by the prominent scholars Elizabeth W. Dunn, Daniel T. Gilbert and Timothy D. Wilson

The evasive motive

Robert Fisk: For 10 years, we've lied to ourselves to avoid asking the one real question

[...] almost all (literature on 9/11) avoiding the one thing which any cop looks for after a street crime: the motive.


Why so, I ask myself, after 10 years of war, hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, lies and hypocrisy and betrayal and sadistic torture by the Americans – our MI5 chaps just heard, understood, maybe looked, of course no touchy-touchy nonsense – and the Taliban? Have we managed to silence ourselves as well as the world with our own fears? Are we still not able to say those three sentences: The 19 murderers of 9/11 claimed they were Muslims. They came from a  place called the Middle East. Is there a problem out there? [...] 

Publication of the official 9/11 report – in 2004, but read the new edition of 2011 – is indeed worth study, if only for the realities it does present, although its opening sentences read more like those of a novel than of a government inquiry. "Tuesday ... dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States... For those heading to an airport, weather conditions could not have been better for a safe and pleasant journey. Among the travellers were Mohamed Atta..." Were these guys, I ask myself, interns at Time magazine?

But I'm drawn to Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan whose The Eleventh Day confronts what the West refused to face in the years that followed 9/11. "All the evidence ... indicates that Palestine was the factor that united the conspirators – at every level," they write. One of the organisers of the attack believed it would make Americans concentrate on "the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel". Palestine, the authors state, "was certainly the principal political grievance ... driving the young Arabs (who had lived) in Hamburg".

The motivation for the attacks was "ducked" even by the official 9/11 report, say the authors. The commissioners had disagreed on this "issue" – cliché code word for "problem" – and its two most senior officials, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, were later to explain: "This was sensitive ground ...Commissioners who argued that al-Qa'ida was motivated by a religious ideology – and not by opposition to American policies – rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... In their view, listing US support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qa'ida's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy." And there you have it.

So what happened? The commissioners, Summers and Swan state, "settled on vague language that circumvented the issue of motive". There's a hint in the official report – but only in a footnote which, of course, few read. In other words, we still haven't told the truth about the crime which – we are supposed to believe – "changed the world for ever". Mind you, after watching Obama on his knees before Netanyahu last May, I'm really not surprised.

When the Israeli Prime Minister gets even the US Congress to grovel to him, the American people are not going to be told the answer to the most important and "sensitive" question of 9/11: why?

Noam Chomsky sees hegemonic powers showing extreme contempt for democracy – and acting in ways they know will increase terrorism

Food for thought en forma de rap

Razones económicas para rechazar el acuerdo neoliberal entre el PSOE y el PP

El acuerdo entre el PSOE y el PP para incorporar a la Constitución española un precepto que impida que los gobiernos incurran en déficit no es fruto de la casualidad.

Responde a la ideología neoliberal dominante en los últimos años que ha tratado de justificar el principio de estabilidad presupuestaria para poder tapar las vergüenzas de unas políticas neoliberales que son incapaces de generar suficiente actividad económica y empleo y la necesaria estabilidad de las economía a medio y largo plazo. [...]

Pactos de estabilidad, pactos contra la democracia y el bienestar social

Además de las consecuencias puramente económicas que acabo de señalar, el principio de estabilidad presupuestaria (y más concretamente su imposición a través de mandatos constitucionales) significa en la práctica impedir que la ciudadanía pueda elegir libremente a la hora de enfrentarse a los problemas económicos de nuestra época.

Al imponerlo en cualquier momento y condición, como ahora han acordado en España el PSOE y el PP, se impide que los gobiernos puedan suscribir pactos con sus electores si no es en los términos prescritos por la ortodoxia económica dominante. Se obliga de esta forma a que las única política posibles sean las neoliberales.

Es decir, la imposición del principio de estabilidad implica que no puedan darse soluciones negociadas y, por lo tanto democráticas, al conflicto social inevitable que es consustancial con la generación y distribución de la renta y la riqueza. [...]

La democracia y las políticas de bienestar se basan en la posibilidad de negociación frente al conflicto social y en una idea claramente expuesta por Stiglitz (2002:16): "no existe una única política Pareto-dominante (óptima) en la que puedan estar de acuerdo todas las personas ´razonables´".

Llevar a la constitución el principio de estabilidad presupuestaria es imponer de facto una dictadura económica porque para evitar el déficit público se impone un gigantesco déficit democrático que impide que todos las personas se encuentren en igualdad de condiciones a la hora de decidir sobre los problemas económicos. Por eso podemos decir que la imposición de un principio de estabilidad presupuestaria en las condiciones en que se impone es algo radicalmente contrario al sentido más elemental de la democracia.

¿Se puede actuar de otra forma?

La historia económica demuestra que cuando los gobiernos han actuado poniendo en marcha políticas fiscales y monetarias discrecionales y combinadas han logrado mejores resultados que en los últimos años de rechazo neoliberal a la fiscalidad discrecional y progresiva.

Y el sentido común indica que afirmar que la estabilidad presupuestaria es buena por principio, en cualquier caso, es una soberana tontería. Como lo sería afirmar que una economía puede endeudarse ilimitadamente sin problema ninguno.

¿Qué adelantaría un país con tener estabilidad presupuestaria si al mismo tiempo carece del capital social y de las estructuras –físicas, educativas, sanitarias, sociales, culturales, relacionales o empresariales…- que son imprescindibles para que sus empresarios puedan crear riqueza y sus ciudadanos adquirir el imprescindible capital humano y el bienestar adecuado?

Lo importante no es garantizar en todo caso que no haya déficit.

Lo razonable y lo que proporciona progreso a una nación es disponer de la dotación de capital social necesario para satisfacer las necesidades sociales. Esta debe ser la variable de partida y no el saldo cero del presupuesto público.

Y lo que sabemos, porque la historia es indiscutible en este aspecto, es que eso no se puede conseguir sin una suficiente dotación de gasto público. Por tanto, lo primero es asegurar este y luego encontrar las vías adecuadas de financiación.

El problema que tienen las políticas neoliberales y quienes las defienden es que son incapaces de generar esa financiación por tres razones. Primero, porque quieren evitar que las clases de mayor renta paguen impuestos. Segundo, porque provocan una gran desigualdad y eso deprime a las economías y hace que puedan generar muchos menos ingresos para las arcas del estado. Y tercero porque incentivan que el ahorro vaya a los mercados financieros en lugar de a financiar la actividad productiva. Y como son incapaces de generar ingresos no tienen más alternativa que imponer la reducción del gasto con las consecuencias que he señalado.

De hecho, el problema que está padeciendo una economía como la española en relación con la deuda (dejando al margen el inadecuado modelo de crecimiento de los últimos años) no es su cuantía sino que su financiación está a expensas de los especuladores.

La alternativa, [...], es poner en marcha otro tipo de políticas que frenen la desigualdad, que promocionen un nuevo tipo de actividad económica y se basen en una mayor justicia fiscal y social y que así procuren nuevos y mayores ingresos para no tener que reducir la dotación de los bienes y servicios de bienestar que necesita la inmensa mayoría de la población. Es muy posible que eso requiera cierto nivel de endeudamiento, que ni siquiera tiene por qué ser muy elevado, aunque desde luego mayor al déficit cero que se impone. Pero si se aplican políticas generadoras de ingresos productivos, si se fomenta el uso razonable del ahorro y si se acaba con la especulación financiera no tiene por qué ser un escollo para alcanzar los mayores niveles de rendimiento empresarial, de bienestar social y de progreso que España necesita.

Por el magnifico Juan Torres Lopez, el articulo completo en su blog Ganas de Escribir

Back to the start, food for thought