Translate | Traducir

dijous, 20 d’abril de 2017

Por qué es imposible crear empleos en Occidente

Repárese en un simple dato numérico. Antes de dar inicio la segunda gran ola globalizadora del capitalismo hacia principios de los años ochenta, los mercados laborales de las economías abiertas agrupaban en total a unos mil millones de trabajadores. Tres décadas después, tras la disolución del bloque soviético y la apertura de China e India a los mercados transnacionales, esa cifra se había multiplicado por tres, hasta alcanzar una oferta de mano de obra que ronda los tres mil millones de personas. Así las cosas, un político europeo de derechas o de izquierdas que ansíe mantener una mínima honestidad intelectual está obligado a explicar cómo piensa crear puestos de trabajo en París, en Roma o en Vallecas si solo en Vietnam ya hay 86 millones de candidatos a cubrirlos cobrando una décima parte del salario fijado en Occidente. O menos. Y desde la honestidad intelectual solo se puede decir que esos puestos de trabajo no se van a crear nunca. De ahí la eclosión del precariado en Europa y Norteamérica. En la Francia que votará el domingo, el precariado representa casi la mitad de la población activa del país. Y el suyo será, nadie lo dude, el voto de la frustración y de la ira. También Francia puede caer. | JOSÉ GARCÍA DOMÍNGUEZ

Eso explica por qué el proteccionismo aparece como la respuesta política adecuada. Al fin y al cabo en los últimos 150 años el proteccionismo ha sido la norma y el libre comercio la excepción. Se trata de una evidencia empírica, como también es una evidencia empírica que mantener cerradas las puertas de la economía nacional durante períodos prolongados termina por empobrecer a todos, ya que se suele perder el tren de la innovación y la revolución tecnológica.

A diferencia de épocas anteriores, la competencia de la mano de obra de países tercermundistas o en desarrollo coincide actualmente con un cambio profundo del modelo productivo nacido de la revolución industrial en el siglo XIX. Las llamadas tercera y cuarta revoluciones industriales -digital e inteligencia artificial- dejan obsoletos los modos de producción y las relaciones laborales existentes hasta hoy. Todo está cambiando y a gran velocidad. El problema es que nadie sabe a ciencia cierta dónde desembocará y cómo será ese futuro cada vez más inminente. Vivimos en la incertidumbre de las eras de transición. Y la incertidumbre encumbra a líderes peligrosos.

El suicidio democrático de Turquía




1. La confrontacional retórica islamista-nacionalista de Erdogan sigue atrayendo a masas que lo adoran por decir que está acometiendo el proceso de restablecimiento del histórico influjo otomano del país como líder del mundo islámico. Su retórica —y sus prácticas— evocan a menudo un régimen autoritario en forma de sultanato. No fue una coincidencia que los miles de seguidores de Erdogan que se congregaron para aclamar a su líder tras su victoria en el referéndum ondeasen apasionadamente banderas turcas y otomanas y coreasen “Alahu Akbar” [“Alá es el más grande”, en árabe]. Para la mayoría de los conservadores seguidores de Erdogan, “primero va Dios… y después Erdogan”. Ese sentimiento explica por qué la votación del domingo no era sólo un aburrido asunto constitucional para muchos turcos: se trataba de apoyar a un hombre ambicioso que promete resucitar un pasado glorioso.

2. La campaña por el no y sus defensores fueron sistemáticamente silenciados e intimidados por el poderoso aparato del Estado, incluida la Policía y el Poder Judicial. En cambio, la campaña por el sí gozó de todo el apoyo posible del Gobierno, con una plena movilización de los mecanismos del Estado y los recursos públicos. Aún peor: Turquía fue a las urnas bajo el estado de emergencia que se declaró tras el fallido golpe de julio.

3. Un organismo parlamentario de la Unión Europea (UE) advirtió antes del referéndum de su dudosa legitimidad democrática. Decía que el Gobierno había minado la capacidad de los diputados para hacer campaña a favor del no. “Simplemente, no se dieron las condiciones para un plebiscito libre y limpio sobre las reformas constitucionales propuestas”, decía un informe publicado por la Comisión Cívica de la UE y Turquía. Subrayaba, entre otros motivos, que los líderes de un partido prokurdo que había hecho campaña por el no llevaban encarcelados desde noviembre, acusados de tener vínculos con organizaciones terroristas. Según una ONG pro derechos civiles, en los quince meses previos al referéndum la Policía empleó la violencia para poner fin a un total de 264 protestas pacíficas en defensa del no.

4. Con aproximadamente 150 periodistas en la cárcel, había un clima generalizado de miedo.

La gran purga turca arroja cifras colosales. Según el ministro del Interior turco, Suleyman Soylu, 47.155 personas han sido encarceladas desde el intento de golpe del 15 de julio;

113.260 personas han sido detenidas;

41.499 personas han salido de la cárcel con libertad condicional y 23.861 personas han sido excarceladas sin condiciones; otros 863 sospechosos aún no han sido detenidos;

10.732 de los arrestados eran agentes de policía; 168, generales, y 7.463 miembros del Ejército seguían en prisión el pasado día 2;

2.575 jueces y fiscales y 208 gobernadores u otros administradores públicos han sido encarcelados. 
El número de civiles en prisión –incluidos discapacitados, amas de casa y ancianos– es de 26.177; más de 135.000 personas han sido purgadas. 
Un total de 7.137 académicos fueron purgados, así como 4.272 jueces y fiscales que fueron despedidos por su presunta participación en la intentona golpista.

Los defensores del no fueron amenazados y tratados como terroristas. Los observadores de la Organización para la Seguridad y Cooperación en Europa (OSCE) confirmaron casos de intimidación contra la campaña del no en todo el país.

5. El Partido Republicano del Pueblo, la principal formación opositora, ha denunciado un fraude electoral. Sostiene que la votación se manipuló en fondo y forma. Cuando el recuento electoral ya llevaba una hora en marcha, la Junta Suprema Electoral declaró válidas papeletas sin sellos oficiales. Esa práctica contraviene claramente el reglamento electoral. La oposición también denunció que en algunas ciudades echaron a los apoderados de las organizaciones a favor del no de los centros electorales. En Turquía, probablemente no importa qué dice la papeleta, lo que importa es quién las cuenta. | Burak Bekdil
Artículo completo, aquí



dimarts, 18 d’abril de 2017

El Sí a Erdogan ganó en Bélgica, Francia, Alemania, Holanda, Austria y Dinamarca


Resulta curioso observar como el Sí ha ganado de calle en aquellos países en los que hay un mayor número de migrantes turcos, que coinciden a su vez con los que limitaron o impidieron que autoridades turcas participaran en actos electorales en su territorio.







Fuente: Wikipedia




dilluns, 17 d’abril de 2017

Marine Le Pen quiere relanzar el laicismo frente a la injerencia política de la Iglesia y el Papa




You are proposing to ban religious symbols in all public places. Doesn’t this radically change the concept of secularism, which is based on tolerance?

MLP: I am only referring to conspicuous religious symbols. Secularism has not had to be tolerant as there haven’t been many ostentatious religious symbols and dress until recently. This is the reality.The Muslim religion has arrived in our country like a tidal wave and radical Islam has begun to apply pressure by means of the veil. It was first banned in schools in 2004. Now, veils are everywhere in the streets. This is a significant breakaway from our idea of secularism, and from our conception of women. This offends French people.


But all religions are opposed to this ban …

MLP: Perhaps. But it is up to the French people to decide. There is a separation between Church and State in our country. If the State makes this decision, religions will have to abide by the rules.Secularism means that one can pass someone in the street without either one knowing what faith the other follows. Now, there is no contesting the fact that the veil is used as a symbol of religious faith.So, yes, we will return to a more rigorous secularism. This does not constitute an opposition to, or rejection of, religion. It is an act to ensure civil peace at a time when such religious manifestations cause more and more conflict.

You wish to relegate religions to the private sphere. So would you deny them right of expression in public debate?

MLP: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. The Conference of Bishops of France sometimes gets involved in what does not concern it: in particular, giving political directions.I don’t get involved with what the Pope should say to his followers. I don’t think religions should tell the French people how to vote.

What is your personal relationship to religion?

MLP: I have a strong faith and I am fortunate in that I have never doubted it.However, I admit that I am angry with the Church because I think that it interferes in everything except what it should really be concerned with. I have found that, in some personal circumstances, the Church has lacked compassion. But this doesn’t mean that I have no respect for some of the priests I meet.

If you are elected, will you invite the Pope?

MLP: With great pleasure. And I will tell him exactly what I have just told you.It does not surprise me that he appeals for charity and the welcoming of migrants. Charity, however, is up to each individual. He asks that States go against the interests of their own people by not placing conditions on the acceptance of significant numbers of migrants.To me, this falls within the realm of politics and even interference, since he is also a head of State.
Entrevista completa, aquí






diumenge, 16 d’abril de 2017

¿Es o no violencia de género?

En la actualidad, la violencia en el seno de las parejas gays y lesbianas se gestiona como violencia doméstica y no como violencia de género. Una diferencia sustancial, pues la ley de violencia de género (Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género) hace referencia a la violencia física o piscológica que sufre la mujer en el seno de la pareja por parte del varón. En cambio, la ley que articula la violencia doméstica (Ley 27/2003, de 31 de julio, reguladora de la Orden de protección de las víctimas de la violencia doméstica) se refiere a la violencia sufrida por cualquier integrante del mismo núcleo familiar que el agresor, ya sea el varón que sufre violencia por parte de su cónyuge, excónyuge, padres o hijos o la mujer que sufre violencia por parte de sus padres o sus hijos.





El gallinero catalán






dissabte, 15 d’abril de 2017

Experto del MIT acusa a McMaster de falsear pruebas para justificar el ataque de Trump a Siria y hundir las relaciones EEUU-Rusia




Theodore A. Postol, profesor emérito de Ciencia, Tecnología y Política de Seguridad Nacional del Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts (MIT), sostiene que el ataque de gas sarín del pasado 4 de abril en la localidad siria de Khan Shaykhun no pudo ser realizada por el ejército sirio leal a Bachar al-Assad.

Postol ya había denunciado en 2013 que el ataque químico en Ghouta no había sido obra de Assad sino de grupos islamistas radicales, tal y como confirmó posteriormente una investigación oficial de la ONU.

De los tres informes realizados por Postol se desprende una sospecha inquietante: la posibilidad que se estén falseando datos para engañar a la Casa Blanca o, peor aún, que gente de la misma lo esté haciendo para protegerse de críticas de política doméstica.
It is now clear from video evidence that the WHR report was fabricated without input from the professional intelligence community.

The press reported on April 4 that a nerve agent attack had occurred in Khan Shaykhun, Syria during the early morning hours locally on that day. On April 7, The United States carried out a cruise missile attack on Syria ordered by President Trump. It now appears that the president ordered this cruise missile attack without any valid intelligence to support it.

In order to cover up the lack of intelligence to supporting the president’s action, the National Security Council produced a fraudulent intelligence report on April 11 four days later. The individual responsible for this report was Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, the National Security Advisor. The McMaster report is completely undermined by a significant body of video evidence taken after the alleged sarin attack and before the US cruise missile attack that unambiguously shows the claims in the WHR could not possibly be true. This cannot be explained as a simple error.

The National Security Council Intelligence Report clearly refers to evidence that it claims was obtained from commercial and open sources shortly after the alleged nerve agent attack (on April 5 and April 6). If such a collection of commercial evidence was done, it would have surely found the videos contained herein.

This unambiguously indicates a dedicated attempt to manufacture a false claim that intelligence actually supported the president’s decision to attack Syria, and of far more importance, to accuse Russia of being either complicit or a participant in an alleged atrocity.

The attack on the Syrian government threatened to undermine the relationship between Russia and the United States. Cooperation between Russia and the United States is critical to the defeat of the Islamic State. In addition, the false accusation that Russia knowingly engaged in an atrocity raises the most serious questions about a willful attempt to do damage relations with Russia for domestic political purposes.

(...)

It is now obvious that this incident produced by the WHR, while just as serious in terms of the dangers it created for US security, was a clumsy and outright fabrication of a report that was certainly not supported by the intelligence community.

In this case, the president, supported by his staff, made a decision to launch 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base. This action was accompanied by serious risks of creating a confrontation with Russia, and also undermining cooperative efforts to win the war against the Islamic State.

I therefore conclude that there needs to be a comprehensive investigation of these events that have either misled people in the White House White House, or worse yet, been perpetrated by people to protect themselves from domestic political criticisms for uninformed and ill-considered actions. | Tercer informe
Los dos informes previos:



White House and administration officials familiar with the current debate tell me there is no consensus on how many troops to send to Syria and Iraq. Two sources told me one plan would envision sending up to 50,000 troops. Blogger and conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich wrote on April 9 that McMaster wanted 150,000 ground troops for Syria, but U.S. officials I spoke with said that number was wildly inflated and no such plan has been under consideration.

In public the tightlipped McMaster has not revealed support for conventional ground forces in Syria. But on Sunday in an interview with Fox News, McMaster gave some insights into his thinking on the broader strategy against the Islamic State. "We are conducting very effective operations alongside our partners in Syria and in Iraq to defeat ISIS, to destroy ISIS and reestablish control of that territory, control of those populations, protect those populations, allow refugees to come back, begin reconstruction," he said.

That's significant. Obama never said the goal of the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria was to defeat the Islamic State, let alone to protect the population from the group and begin reconstruction. Those aims are much closer to the goals of George W. Bush's surge strategy for Iraq at the end of his second term, under which U.S. conventional forces embedded with the Iraqi army would "clear, hold and build" areas that once belonged to al Qaeda's franchise.

McMaster himself is no stranger to the surge. As a young colonel serving in Iraq, he was one of the first military officers to form a successful alliance with local forces, in Tal Afair, to defeat the predecessor to the Islamic State, al Qaeda in Iraq. During the Iraq War, McMaster became one of the closest advisers to David Petraeus, the four-star general who led the counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq that defeated al Qaeda in Iraq -- and brought about a temporary, uneasy peace there.

That peace unraveled after Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq at the end of 2011. Obama himself never apologized for that decision, even though he had to send special operations forces back to Iraq in the summer of 2014 after the Islamic State captured Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. He argued that U.S. forces in Iraq would have been caught up inside a civil war had they stayed.

The cadre of former military advisers to Petraeus took a different view. They argued that America's abandonment of Iraq gave the Shiite majority there a license to pursue a sectarian agenda that provided a political and military opening for the Islamic State. An active U.S. presence in Iraq would have restrained those sectarian forces.

One of those advisers was H.R. McMaster. It's now up to Trump to decide whether to test the Petraeus camp's theory or try to defeat the Islamic State with a light footprint in Syria. Put another way, Trump must decide whether he wants to wage Bush's war or continue Obama's.| Eli Lake (Bloomberg)


divendres, 7 d’abril de 2017

Con el castigo a Assad, Trump advierte a Irán y Corea del Norte: no se permitirá que nadie cruce las líneas rojas




La respuesta militar de Trump al ataque químico en Siria deja claro que la política exterior de los EEUU ha cambiado. Se acabó, pues, la era Obama. La contundente respuesta de Trump al dictador Assad, al que tan sólo unos días antes parecía pragmáticamente dispuesto a aceptar en el poder, manda al mundo una señal inequívoca: no se permitirá a nadie cruzar las líneas rojas. A nadie. Que tomen nota Irán o Corea del Norte. Y también Rusia.

En algunos medios se apunta que el ataque químico del martes podría ser obra de grupos islamistas rebeldes. Al fin y al cabo, existen precedentes. Los ataques químicos en Khan al Asal y en Ghouta en 2013, que inicialmente se atribuyeron al gobierno sirio, la ONU concluyó que las sospechas recaían en el frente opositor al-Nusra.

Sin embargo, también existen precedentes de sospecha sobre la responsabilidad de Damasco en diversos ataques químicos, esporádicos y limitados, como el de esta ocasión. La tesis rusa del transporte de armas químicas del ISIS por territorio sirio y, especialmente, que estas armas se activaron al ser bombardeado el arsenal de los rebeldes en Khan Sheikhoun, resulta inverosímil.

Por un lado, la documentación gráfica disponible muestra la existencia de cráteres provocados por las bombas lanzadas desde aviones sirios en zonas alejadas del arsenal rebelde y en las que hubo también víctimas de gases venenosos. Por otro lado, es prácticamente imposible que el bombardeo del arsenal produjera la emisión de gases venenosos tipo sarín, ya que se trata de gases binarios que sólo se activan cuando se mezclan los componentes antes de su uso.

Even assuming that large quantities of both Sarin precursors were located in the same part of the same warehouse (a practice that seems odd), an air-strike is not going to cause the production of large quantities of Sarin. Dropping a bomb on the binary components does not actually provide the correct mechanism for making the nerve agent. It is an infantile argument. One of the precursors is isopropyl alcohol. It would go up in a ball of flame. A very large one. Which has not been in evidence.

Another issue is that, if the Syrian regime actually did believe that the warehouse stored chemical warfare agents, then striking it deliberately was an act of chemical warfare by proxy.

Finally, we are back to the issue of industrial capacity. It takes about 9 kg of difficult to obtain precursor materials to generate the necessary steps to produce Sarin. The ratio is similar with other nerve agents. Having a quantity of any of the nerve agents relies on a sophisticated supply chain of exotic precursors and an industrial base. Are we to seriously believe that one of the rebel factions has expended the vast sums of money and developed this industrial base, somehow not noticed to date and not molested by attack? It seems an unlikely chain of events.

Todo apunta a que Assad cometió graves errores de cálculo. Por un lado, creyó equivocadamente que la resignada aceptación de Tillerson de su continuidad en el poder era una carta blanca para actuar como le viniera en gana. Por otro, no tuvo en cuenta que los fracasos, por lo menos momentáneos, de Trump en el frente interior -restricción de visados y derogación del Obamacare- le hacían especialmente propenso a emprender acciones significativas que le permitieran cerrar filas y engrandecer su perfil presidencial. Siria le ha brindado esa oportunidad. 'America First' no significa ni inhibición ni irresolución en política exterior. Empieza, pues, con contundencia y sin vacilación, la era Trump.











dimecres, 5 d’abril de 2017

Alguien lo tenía que decir: Obama trazó una 'línea roja' contra el uso de armas químicas pero después no hizo nada

El ataque químico contra gente inocente, incluidos mujeres y niños, registrado hoy en Siria es reprensible y no puede ser ignorado por el mundo civilizado. Estos actos atroces del régimen de Bashar al Asad son consecuencia de la debilidad e irresolución de la anterior Administración [norteamericana]. El presidente Obama dijo en 2012 que trazaría una “línea roja” contra el uso de armas químicas pero después no hizo nada. Los Estados Unidos están con sus aliados en todo el planeta y condenan este intolerable ataque.



dimarts, 4 d’abril de 2017

Manifiesto por un modelo de fin de ETA sin impunidad






La infantilización universitaria amordaza la libertad de expresión en los campus

La supresión de la libertad de expresión en los campus universitarios no es una cosa nueva, analiza Jon Haidt, psicólogo social de la Universidad Stern School of Business de Nueva York. En el pasado, parece haber sido ejercida principalmente por el profesorado y las administraciones, pero ahora lo es por los propios los estudiantes.

Jon Haidt explica que se trata de una 'revolución moral' y que su último hito ha sido la creación de los 'safe spaces' en las universidades de EEUU, Canadá y Gran Bretaña a partir de 2015. Antes, los estudiantes solían estar en contra de la autoridad, en contra de las normas y por la máxima libertad. Ahora, por el contrario, son los estudiantes los que demandan que la autoridad imponga nuevas normas y regulaciones aún a costa de la libertad.



En Plaza Moyua lo interpretan así:

Es de niños cuando aprendemos los trucos para solucionar los conflictos . Y si has pasado la infancia bajo supervisión, el truco es ligarte al que pueda hacer la función de “adulto”, poniendo cara de víctima para que castigue al que le tienes manía — con o sin razón. En el caso de la universidad, su administración. Cuando lleguen al mercado laboral … supongo que el macho alfa Coleta Morada, y los vengadores de Potemos.

Si Haidt tiene razón, y esa pinta lleva, puede ocurrir que en este caso no funcione el cambio usual de “ideología” -o mentalidad- con la edad. Que se es más proclive en edades tiernas a las grandes ideas que nunca funcionan, y al crecer se le va dando más peso a la p*t* realidad. Pero si vienen embarcados en el uso del truqui del victimismo y las prohibiciones morales, podría ocurrir que eso perdure en el tiempo. Y que el mundo cambie, por una interrupción del tránsito de la infancia al adulterio.




diumenge, 2 d’abril de 2017

Para entregar el poder por las buenas Maduro y Castro tendrían que ser Pinochet, pero son algo mucho peor



Lo de Venezuela da risa, qué les puedo decir. Qué esperaban, que Maduro (es decir Raúl Castro) entregara por las buenas el poder. Santocielo. Hay que ser gilipollas, con perdón, para pensar eso. Para entregar el poder por las buenas Maduro y Castro tendrían que ser Pinochet, pero no lo son: son algo muchísimo peor. A ver, lo diré otra vez, tomen nota por favor: el verdadero golpista y el verdadero presidente de Venezuela es Raúl Castro. Maduro es un hombre formado en Cuba es decir por la policía cubana y puesto en Venezuela como monigote castrista. Un monigote completa y absolutamente controlado por la policía cubana. En Venezuela gobiernan los generales cubanos y los asesinos del DSE cubano allí asignados, y hablar del asunto como si fuera un asunto venezolano sólo demuestra complicidad y sólo demuestra abyección. Y cobardía. Así la prensa española que no menciona a los Castro en sus hipócritas y cobardes editoriales.

Pero lo más divertido de todo es el ex presidente español Zapatero tratando de ayudar a los golpistas y a los asesinos cubanos aún después de haber consumado el golpe contra lo poco que quedaba de democracia en Venezuela: no conozco el contenido de los videos que pudiera tener la policía cubana de Zapatero pero han de ser muy jugosos si tenemos en cuenta la vileza en la que se sume Zapatero con tal de servir a los Castro. | Juan Abreu




divendres, 31 de març de 2017

¿Por qué los científicos no están de acuerdo acerca de las causas del cambio climático?




La climatóloga Judith Curry, ex directora de la School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, acaba de participar ante el Comité de Ciencia del Clima de la Cámara de Representantes del Congreso de los EEUU en un panel para tratar sobre el 'método científico y las implicaciones políticas'.

Curry forma parte de ese grueso de científicos ignorados por los medios, excomulgados por sus colegas del establishment climático y perseguidos por políticos adictos al calentamiento global antropogénico.

Como no hay mal que por bien no venga, la llegada de Trump a la presidencia de los EEUU puede servir por lo menos para que los científicos que discrepan de la doctrina oficial del cambio climático salgan a la luz y se restablezca el debate científico imprescindible para que el conocimiento avance y no se fosilice en el dogma.

Estos son unos extractos de su intervención traducidos al español:

"...Llegué a la conclusión de que el alto grado de confianza en las conclusiones del IPCC no estaba justificado, y que había incertidumbres sustanciales en nuestra comprensión de cómo funciona el sistema climático. Me di cuenta de que el consenso prematuro sobre el cambio climático causado por el hombre estaba dañando el progreso científico debido a las preguntas que NO se preguntaban y a las investigaciones que NO se hacían. (...)

Como resultado de mis análisis que desafían el consenso del IPCC, se me ha llamado públicamente desinformadora climática, anti-ciencia y negacionista. (...)

El trabajo de un científico es desafiar continuamente sus propios prejuicios y preguntarse “¿En qué puedo estar equivocado?” Los científicos que demonizan a sus oponentes se están comportando de una manera que es la antítesis del proceso científico. Estas son las tácticas para forzar la aplicación de una teoría prematura con fines políticos.

Existe una enorme presión sobre los científicos del clima para conformar el llamado consenso. Esta presión viene de las agencias federales de financiación, las universidades y las asociaciones profesionales y los propios científicos. Refuerzan este consenso fuertes intereses monetarios, la reputación y la autoridad. Debido a estas presiones y las tácticas de alcantarilla del debate académico sobre el cambio climático, hace poco renuncié a mi puesto de profesora titular en Georgia Tech. (...)

La complejidad del problema del cambio climático ofrece mucho margen para el desacuerdo entre personas razonables e inteligentes. ¿Por qué los científicos no están de acuerdo acerca de las causas del cambio climático? Los datos históricos son escasos e insuficientes. Hay desacuerdo sobre el valor de las diferentes clases de pruebas, en particular el valor de los modelos climáticos globales y las reconstrucciones paleoclimáticas. Hay desacuerdo sobre el marco lógico apropiado para la vinculación y valoración de la prueba. Y los científicos están en desacuerdo sobre las evaluaciones de las zonas de ambigüedad y ignorancia. (...)





Texto íntegro de la declaración de Judith Curry en la Cámara de Representantes. Aquí, texto resumido en inglés realizado por ella misma.


*******************

Hans Von Storch: "Tenemos que quitarle a la gente el miedo al cambio climático"

Hans von Storch es un científico alemán del clima. Es profesor en el Instituto de Meteorología de la Universidad de Hamburgo y el director del Instituto de Investigación Costera en el Centro Helmholtz de Investigación.

SPIEGEL.- Algunos grupos políticos y de protección del clima están pidiendo a los alemanes que en el futuro pasen sus vacaciones de verano en su propio país.

Storch: Eso es sólo otro de esos intentos típicamente alemanes de salvar el mundo con actos simbólicos. Nos hace sentir mejores personas y moralmente superiores a los demás.

(...)

SPIEGEL: ¿Es posible para evitar el calentamiento global en este momento?

Storch: No. Debido al lapso de tiempo inherente al sistema climático, los gases de efecto invernadero que ya han sido inyectados en la atmósfera sin duda provocarán un cierto aumento de la temperatura en las próximas décadas. Ya no podemos evitar completamente el cambio climático antropogénico. En el mejor de los casos, limitar el aumento de la temperatura en dos grados es posible, según las estimaciones más optimistas. Es por eso que debemos pasar más tiempo hablando de adaptarse a lo inevitable y no tanto de reducir las emisiones de CO2. Tenemos que quitarle a la gente el miedo al cambio climático.

SPIEGEL: Pero muchos creen que ya tenemos encima el fin del mundo. El debate sobre el clima ¿no se está convirtiendo en demasiado histérico?

Storch: En efecto. El miedo a las catástrofes climáticas es muy antiguo y no muy diferente de nuestro miedo a los extraños. En el pasado, la gente creía que el clima casi siempre cambia para peor, y sólo rara vez para mejor -castigo de Dios por el comportamiento pecaminoso. Y hoy en día los pecadores son esos derrochadores hedonistas que contaminan el aire para ir a contemplar peces exóticos en los mares del sur. Sería mejor si no desplazáramos en bicicleta. Oh, siempre hay alguien moviendo un dedo en señal de desaprobación.

SPIEGEL: ¿Sólo hay consecuencias negativas cuando la temperatura aumenta dos o tres grados en todo el planeta?

Storch: No es posible hacer previsiones detalladas, porque no sabemos cómo se desarrollarán las emisiones. Nosotros, los investigadores del clima sólo podemos ofrecer posibles escenarios. En otras palabras, las cosas pueden llegar a ser completamente diferentes. Pero sin duda hay partes del mundo que se beneficiarán con el cambio climático. Esas áreas serán las del norte, donde el frío ha sido incómodo en el pasado. Pero se considera prácticamente herético hablar de estas cuestiones.





JUDITH CURRY.- In his testimony to the House Science Committee on Wednesday, Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, told the story of Trofim Lysenko, a plant scientist who worked for Stalinist Russia:

Lysenko was a Russian agronomist and it became Leninist doctrine to impose his views about heredity, which were crackpot theories, completely at odds with the world’s scientists. Under Stalin, scientists were being jailed if they disagreed with his theories about agriculture. And Russian agriculture actually suffered, scientists were jailed, many died in their jail cells and potentially millions of people suffered from the disastrous agriculture policies that followed from that.

The gist of Mann’s anecdote was that scientists who challenge the ruling government’s diktat on any given scientific issue are demonized and punished while innocent bystanders suffer. In the here and now, this would seemingly apply to the minority of scientists brave enough to question the reigning dogma of climate science. After all, these are the folks who have been threatened by top law-enforcement officials, personally and professionally attacked by their peers, and even driven out of their academic positions due to the harassment.

But astonishingly, Mann was not talking about those scientists: He was talking about himself. In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann — a tenured professor at one of the country’s top public universities — opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag. It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully.








dijous, 30 de març de 2017

Juncker amenaza con apoyar la independencia de Ohio y Texas si Trump sigue alentando brexits en Europa




VALLETTA, Malta — European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Thursday he would promote the independence of U.S. states if Donald Trump continues to encourage EU countries to follow the U.K.’s example and leave the bloc.

At a meeting of leaders of the center-right European People’s Party in Malta, Juncker said Brexit would not be the end of the European Union — even if some people, such as Trump, would like that outcome.

In response to White House claims that Trump was “a leader on Brexit,” Juncker declared: “If that continues, I’ll call for Ohio to be independent and Texas to leave the United States.”

Juncker’s remarks came a day after Britain formally notified the EU that it intended to depart.

“Brexit should be the beginning of something new, something better,” Juncker said. “We need to continue.”
Seguir leyendo...




dimecres, 29 de març de 2017

¿Por qué los hombres se suicidan?



November is the one month of the year when men’s health issues come to the fore. This is largely due to the efforts of the Movember Foundation, the dynamic charity raising funds and awareness about men’s health.

Men’s mental health is an area of key concern, especially the high rates of suicide. Around 75 per cent of suicides are men, with over 50 per week dying by suicide in Canada. These are particularly pronounced in the 40-60 age group. This has led Prof. Dan Bilsker of Simon Fraser University to declare that we are experiencing a “silent epidemic of male suicide.”

It may be that there is something about being a man in modern society (especially a middle-aged one) that is contributing to these elevated rates of suicide. Three factors, all under-researched and under-acknowledged, may be playing an explanatory role.

Firstly, suicide in men may be linked to occupational stress. Men continue to make up the overwhelming proportion of people working in the most dangerous and dirty occupations. These include mining, fishing, forestry, oil/gas, construction, law enforcement and the military. Many of these jobs are subject to the whims of the seasonal and economic cycle, with periods of intense work followed by periods of unemployment. The very nature of these jobs can further expose workers to social isolation, separation from family, physical risk, injury and violence. This in turn can lead to higher rates of disability, substance use and post-traumatic stress disorder, all proven predictors of suicide.

Secondly, male suicide has been associated with specific life events, which particularly affect middle-aged men. Divorce is an event that may have a particularly deleterious effect. Men can suddenly lose their home, their children, their reputation as well as a substantial portion of their salary and pension to boot. And their experience in family courts can destroy any faith they have in society and justice. Many men report that the family justice system is institutionally sexist, casually entertaining false allegations while continuously ruling against them, regardless of actual circumstances. A common perception is that the legal system will deploy all its might to extract men’s hard won resources, but will rarely enforce fathers’ rights to see their sons and daughters. This can leave men feeling disempowered, desperate and distraught.| Robert Whitley
Seguir leyendo...




ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST 8-YEARS OF THE SPANISH LAW OF “GENDER VIOLENCE”. 2004 – 2012

Antonia M. Carrasco, President GenMad (Asociación de Víctimas de la Ley de Violencia de Género Madrid) and Marisa Culebras, President Feminist Association for Equality (FEMII)

January 2013

This past December marked the eighth anniversary of the implementation of Spain’s rather infamous Law 1/2004, a law that aimed to “guarantee integrated protection measures against Gender Violence”.

The General Council of Judicial Power (CGPJ) has now published the official statistics for this period, allowing an in-depth analysis of the legal effects of the law in regards to: a) women, as beneficiaries of the law, b) men, as subjects of the law, and c) police forces: responsible for implementing the law and its policies.

Due to the widespread controversy created in Spanish society by the adoption of the law, during these eight years many groups have been formed in its support, yet equally, many others arose to questioned it’s very legality, many of which have been formed by citizens directly affected by the law itself. It is undeniable that this topic has been one of the most hotly debated issues due to the intense interest it has generated amongst members of various professional institutions, equally as much as in the associations of affected citizens and general detractors of the law of “Gender Violence”.

Questionable Constitutionality

In our opinion, the law of “Gender Violence”, that is to say a law defined as violence against women originating exclusively from male partners, is in itself, unconstitutional and should never have been approved. The pre-approval reports issued ​​by the General Council of the Judiciary, the State Council and the Attorney General, were extremely negative and warned of serious legal and constitutional consequences. The question we ask ourselves is why was it approved despite the negative reports issued by important advisory bodies? This law is fundamentally sexist (protecting only female partners), legally asymmetric and unidirectional. The law interprets lesser acts of violence committed by a woman against a man as a misdemeanour, whereas if the perpetrator is a man, it is interpreted as a crime. It also disregards the right that a Spanish citizen may not suffer discrimination on the grounds of sex. But what is most alarming is that the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence becomes, in the case of a man, a presumption of guilt, reversing the burden of proof, forcing the accused to prove his innocence beyond doubt, directly violating several international laws ratified by Spain, which guarantee the presumption of innocence, as for example, article 14.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

After the board of Spain´s Constitutional Court had been “reorganised” by the past government, it declared the law of “Gender Violence” constitutional by just one vote, basing the judgment on the fact that the perpetrators of the majority of domestic violence are overwhelmingly male, and as such allowing the imposition of heavier penalties against men. Following this reasoning, as a renowned jurist mentioned at the time, given that the majority of the prison population is foreign, the legislature could just as well amend the Criminal Code to set a higher penalty on crimes committed by foreigners, as opposed to those committed by nationals!

With the law in vigour, numerous Spanish feminist associations began to make recommendations to women seeking assistance that instead of going to a family therapist – that existed for the very purpose – that they applied to a court of “gender violence” to resolve their marital or family issues. There are sites such as www.infomaltrato.com, where they recommend making a complaint to the police for numerous types of issues. Obviously, there are many instances that relate to serious abuse, thus reporting the matter and requesting protection measures are reasonable, but a substantial number of cases have been based on trivial complaints, such as not letting the female partner watch a certain TV program, or not letting them finish a crossword, or even criticizing the partners clothes.

If we visit this site and read all the cases in which the recommendation is to make a police report, almost all men should be reported for abuse, as it is difficult if not impossible for a couple to never suffer one of these type of minor squabbles at some moment during their relationship: “Indications of abuse”.

Apart from these issues, economic motivations have been created in which a woman becomes automatically entitled with just simple certificate of “bad treatment” issued by a women’s association (and without even a court judgment), to receive aid of several thousand euros or more having reported their male partner. The complaint only has to be within any of the many cases defined in the following link: “Rights of victims”.

Once a woman partner has filed a complaint, the steps that the police and Women’s Court can take are often emotionally scarring for many of the men involved. Without trial, and often without evidence or any sign of physical violence, men of all positions are often arrested by police, even at their place of work, and taken into custody. Sometimes this is done on a Friday, with the result that the man may have to spend the entire weekend in a cell if he does not “fully cooperate”. Judges at the Women’s Courts usually give an immediate “distance order”, which can result in the man being unable to attend his work if his partner is also working at the same location.

Obviously there are no statistics about collateral victims, but we cannot forget that behind every unfairly accused man, there are family, friends and many others that can be affected watching the suffering caused by an ordeal of this nature that may last years until they are finally acquitted.

In the accompanying article from 2009, “The minor is the great forgotten of our Law of Gender Violence” a judge of a Madrid Court for “Gender Violence” stated that in 2007 he handled some 5000 cases, and that with such a saturation of cases for all types of petty complaints, many real cases of domestic violence were left unprotected having devoted resources to those that in reality needed little more than family counselling, which is the case in the vast majority of allegations, as shown below.

This same judge, exhausted from all the cases, freed a man in error, who had been imprisoned temporarily for gender violence, who later broke a restraining order for assault, breaking into the home of his former partner with a 12-gauge shotgun and, after physically and sexually assaulting her, held a 6 hour siege at her home with shotgun in hand, tying up a police negotiator team in the process.

In domestic violence, as it is called in Europe, or gender violence in Spain (which excludes violence against male, homosexual partners, or children), Spain is the only country in the European Union and developed countries, where the law differentiates between men and women in the same crime or misdemeanour, and the only country in which Courts exist dedicate to the exclusive prosecution of men; with 106 “Gender Violence” Courts in total.

Actual statistics: In the seven years since the law was implemented, the Women’s Courts have processed 963,471 criminal cases against men, of which just 10% (101,900) related to cases where signs of violence could be seen. A total of 520,839 sentences where handed down against men where no physical signs of violence could be found, and where in many cases, the only evidence was that of the ex partner.

Of nearly one million cases against men, just 33,473 related to serious violence.

Is every case macho-based violence?

In most European countries the cause of domestic aggression is investigated and fully reported. In Spain, this has not been the case: the Spanish judiciary have assumed that all aggression against women has a sexist basis. For example, when it comes to aggression caused by jealousy following infidelity, if the aggressor is male, it is automatically considered “macho” violence, or “violencia de género”, exclusively from male perpetrators aimed at women for being women. However, when the aggressor is a jealous woman, or when a woman is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or diseases such as schizophrenia, the cause is not considered to be feminist violence against men. Machismo, or violence against women, is a very distinct concept in Spain, and is used to push the statistics that justify the vast economic and media barrage aimed at so-called gender violence. Regardless of the propaganda in Spain, the statistics on “gender violence” murders in Spain are the lowest in Europe.

The aggressive national campaigns against gender violence since the law was implemented, where, as mentioned earlier, women were strongly encouraged to report any and all types of relationship problems to the Police, including, for example, where a man had simply raised his voice against his partner, have created a collective paranoia that has led many women to report their partner, with many subsequent arrests and prosecutions, with many men being condemned and forced to take rehabilitation courses. However, far from rehabilitating these hundreds of thousands of men, it seems that in some cases more violence has occurred, by men embittered by unjust and often ruthless treatment in Women’s Courts that only serve the interests of women. Given the actual statistics, it seems that the gender violence campaigns of “Zero Tolerance” would have us believe that a molehill is a mountain and a mountain a molehill.

How has social propaganda in Spain achieved to paint all domestic violence as macho? In our view, the strategy used was, in short, very similar to the 11 principles of propaganda created by Goebbels and used by the Nazis to raise awareness among German citizens of the “Jewish problem”.

In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler explains how the media are essential in the indoctrination of the public. What is truly sad is that history shows us that these techniques work perfectly time and again.

“Whatever definition we may give to the term ‘public opinion’, only a very small part of it originates from personal experience or individual insight. The greater portion of it results from the manner in which public matters have been presented to the people through an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of ‘information’.

In the religious sphere the profession of a denominational belief is largely the result of education, while the religious yearning itself slumbers in the soul; so too the political opinions of the masses are the final result of influences systematically operating on human sentiment and intelligence in virtue of a method which is applied sometimes with almost-incredible thoroughness and perseverance.

By far the most effective branch of political education, which in this connection is best expressed by the word ‘propaganda’, is carried on by the Press. The Press is the chief means employed in the process of political ‘enlightenment’. It represents a kind of school for adults. This educational activity, however, is not in the hands of the State but in the clutches of powers that are partly of a very inferior character. While still a young man in Vienna I had excellent opportunities for coming to know the men who owned this machine for mass instruction, as well as those who supplied it with the ideas it distributed. At first I was quite surprised when I realized how little time was necessary for this dangerous Great Power within the State to produce a certain belief among the public; and in doing so the genuine will and convictions of the public were often completely misconstrued. It took the Press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of national importance, while vital problems were completely ignored or filched and hidden away from public attention.“

Statistics for deceased gender violence.

Figure shown below are from the French authorities, and relate to deaths within the scope of couples, produced by a variety of causes rather than the “sole and indisputable” one that is promoted in Spain, namely macho violence. As we can see below, the motives and circumstances of domestic violence resulting in death, are: discussion, alcohol, separation, jealousy, depression, drugs, medication, mental illness. Source: French National Assembly.

In a 2006 study by the Centro Reina Sofia, that excluded countries whose population were very small, such as Monaco and Andorra, Spain holds sixth place from bottom, with a rate of 2 people per million murdered (81) through domestic violence, this being just below Bulgaria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Scotland. All other European countries are above this rate. 12.37 Cyprus, Austria 9.40, Finland 9.35, CR 8.15, 7.14 Croatia, Estonia 6.38, Hungary 5.95, France 5.22, 5.09 Luxembourg, England 4, 20, Norway 3.67, Italy 3.66, Slovenia 3.99, 2.81 SPAIN.

Based on these figures, the European average is 3.94 deaths per million people. It should be noted that the implementation of law 1/2004 of Gender Violence in Spain did not result in this reduced level of female deaths, in contrary, death rates increased following the law.

Custody and gender violence.

At this time, the government is expected to approve the joint custody law nationally. Will this affect the number of cases of domestic violence?

The Civil Code, Article 92.7, states that joint custody will not be allowed if either parent is the subject of criminal proceedings or when a Judge finds evidence of domestic violence. This opens the door to an increase in the number of reports by women of “bad treatment”, to ensure that child custody will be awarded to the mother exclusively. This is nothing new, in Aragon the joint custody law was passed in late 2010, following which in 2011 complaints increased by 25.40%. What will happen nationwide on adoption of the Joint Custody law?

Analysis of the recently figures published.

On 21 November 2012, Ms. Inmaculada Montalbán, Chairperson of the Observatory against Gender Violence of the CGPJ, presented the figures following nearly eight years of implementation of the gender violence law.

In the report, Ms. Montalbán states that the figures raise great cause for alarm, the difference however is that our concern has an entirely different interpretation of those figures. In her remarks highlighting the work of the Courts specialising in gender violence and its aim to end impunity of male culprits by achieving an 80% conviction rate, if we analyze the figures carefully, we see little more than a heavy bias in the manner in which the information is presented. We explain:

In her report she provides the number of reported crimes as 1,034,613 (alleged crimes 963,471 and alleged misdemeanours 71,142), she repeatedly refers to “crimes” rather than “alleged crimes”, assuming that these allegations have all been substantiated. She then provides the number of convictions at 207,997, mixing crimes with misdemeanours, which constitutes just 20.1% of the total cases reported leading to conviction.

So what happened to the remaining 826,616 cases? It seems that 706,568 of the cases were dismissed, and 120,048 end in acquittal. If we add this to the number of complaints that were retracted, the result is that from all the reported cases, 79,90% of the men reported to the police suffered: arrest (most of them), loss of home, loss of access to children and home, financial ruin, loss of property/pension, as well as having to pay the mortgage on their own home in which they could no longer live, marginalization and social stigma to be called and considered abusers even before judgment, resulting in psychological strain that can result in depression and suicide in some cases. There is no public official way to know how many men have finished with their lives because of this situation. Then these men, after suffering all this terrible chain of events following the report by their ex partner, are found not guilty or innocent, but the damage has already been done, and no compensation is offered, as official, “false complaints” do not exist.

Note that in the Courts of Violence against Women, 100% of the convictions are under compliance, that is to say that the accused is given a choice, for example, 30 days of social work and a course of rehabilitation, or a jail term of between six months and two years, and the accused men have accepted the lesser sentence rather than to continue to defend their innocence. Given this situation, not knowing that their compliance carries a criminal record and a hypothetical new complaint involving a jail sentence, the accused detainee accepted social work with the aim of ending the case.

What type of crime is reported?

Given the data issued by Ms. Montalbán, it is noteworthy that nearly 80% are for offences related to Article 153 of the criminal code relating to causing mental suffering, or mistreatment without causing physical injury. This means that a simple argument involving harsh language, even where the man says something like “you’ll find out!”, etc., is reason enough to report a gender crime, but only if the complainant is a woman. Only 5% of complaints are made ​​under Article 148 of the Criminal Code, which provide for severe cases of abuse. What is occurring in Spain is the criminalizing of men for trifles and specific discussions in the home environment.

In our association we come across cases where men have been convicted for flatulence during a discussion, or of causing the partner abuse via “telepathic” means, or simple by the man losing patience and reverting to the use of the “f” word. Although it seems utterly ridiculous, we assure you that in the case of gender violence, truth is stranger than fiction.

Conclusions.

An analysis of the official Spanish government figures raises two issues: firstly, that in 826,616 cases between 2005 and 2012, the accused, all men, were found to be innocent. And, secondly, that the vast majority of the complaints were based on Article 153 of the Criminal Code, namely that the woman reporting her ex partner had not suffered any physical harm. For these and other reasons, our opinion is that most of the arrests made, almost a million, during these 7 years, could be considered illegal: What is the explanation?

The explanation is found within the constitutional mandates that the police must follow, such as the Protocol for June 2004 and the SES Instruction no. 05/2008. We explain:

Article 104 of our Constitution requires the Police to act as guarantor of the rights and freedoms of citizens and, in particular, to protect victims of crime, and article 24.2 that guarantees the presumption of innocence. Also, as previously pointed out, international law also guarantees the presumption of innocence, as article 14.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

A large number of risk assessments conducted after allegations of gender violence resulted in a “Undeterminable risk” opinion. In Instruction 5/2008 of the SES, it says that “in this case the Police will act with the same measures, operational and care, as for any other type of complainant “, so acting on a complaint without basis or foundation would not be justified and would contravene Instruction 12/2007 of the SES, the technical regulation No. 1/2008 issued by the DAO on Procedures for the Civil Guard units on Gender Violence, which specifies, that to act, there must be a serious risk to the victim – of course complaints must be substantiated by the Protocol for security and Police forces, including coordination with the courts to protect victims of gender violence. Furthermore, the law and the above instructions do require an investigation of the victim, in order to provide accurate and sufficient evidence of the alleged abuse, since the mere word of the complainant, without supporting evidence, is insufficient. Acting with the excuse of protecting the complainant, without signs of abuse or an accompanying risk assessment, is illegal, unfair and unjustified and could lead to accusations of illegal detention under Article 167 of the Penal Code.

Obviously, to this must be added the provisions of the Judicial Police Manual .

We recall that all of this legislation is available on the Police intranet, so that in case of a complaint to the Police, no one can claim ignorance or lack of information.

Possible causes of erroneous interpretation and application of the law by some members of security forces.

We believe that some agents acted illegally for several reasons: in our view, misinformation and fear to take responsibility if the accused later assaulted the alleged victim, and the impartiality adopted by external influencing groups supported by the government of the time, that applied pressure on the security forces.

We believe that the Secretary of State for Security should issue a Technical Instruction to clarify to agents when it is appropriate and when not to arrest and the legal foundations of both situations. In addition, officers and NCOs should be trained more rigorously, to ensure that agents know the correct procedures.

It is striking that in an official document of the Ministry of Interior, an Action Protocol for the Coordination of Security Forces, advocates that in reviewing cases relating to the Gender Violence Law 1/2004, Integral Protection Measures against Violence Gender, they did not find a single reference to the word “alleged”, thereby assuming the presumption of guilt in all the men that had been reported, to the point of calling them “criminals”, without any judgment of conviction having occurred. Remembering the statistics given earlier, the constant references that all the men reported were considered to be guilty first, yet only 10% of cases resulted in criminal convictions.

Comprehensive monitoring system in cases of domestic violence.

In the Bibliography section of the report there are so-called professionals listed that, in our opinion, should not have been included or even involved in national domestic violence programs. Two of these are recognized Radical feminists, Beauvoir, and Firestone, in whose books, far from promoting peace and equality between men and women, they support a form of social engineering as defence of female superiority and push hatred between men and women, an issue that could compromise the impartiality of the Police agents thought the promotion of these radicals and their publications. We also find listed the author Jorge Corsi, who has supported Spanish radical feminism to implement gender ideology among society, and who has been convicted in his home country, Argentina, in a final judgment for several years jail for paedophilia, so it seems inappropriate that this “author” remains as recommended reading for Police agents.

The criminal record as a pederast, and methodology to capture victims of Jorge Corsi is available on Google.

Finally, there is a strong political root to Spain´s Gender Violence law, one based on the pre-election campaign of José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who came to power earlier in the same year that law came into force.

There are many reports from the Spanish Press of Mr Zapatero visiting many women´s groups and giving favourable support to their aim of having their “own Court for Women”, and given that in Spain there are more women than men, feminist groups held a special appeal for Zapatero in his aim to raise votes.

Literature recommended:

The Dictatorship of Género (Violence against Women). (ex-Judge, Francisco Serrano 2012) I A Social Engineers To Destroy Love (Rafael Palacios 2012) Femicide or Self-Construction of Women (María Stephen Prado and Félix Rodrigo Mora 2012) 400 International Reports Prejudice Against a www.escorrecto.org (J to L Alvarez Deca) All legal/police protocols and instructions referred to in this article. Legislation alluded to in UN and European policy. Reference sources:

EP article with statements from Immaculate Montalbán, “Balance of seven years after the creation of the Courts of Violence General Council of the Judiciary, Author: Observatory against Domestic and Gender Violence (Spain), “Balance of seven years after the creation of the Courts of Violence against Women See also: Report GenMad 2014: Victims’ Association of the Gender Violence Law MADRID



dimarts, 28 de març de 2017

Sáenz de Santamaría: “Hemos de recuperar la neutralidad de las instituciones”



Santamaría: “No hemos venido a hacer anuncios ni ofertas, hemos venido a comprometernos”
La vicepresidenta del Gobierno, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, asegura que quiere evitar reproches entre instituciones y se da por satisfecha si el debate sobre la relación ambas instituciones “se traslada al campo de las infraestructuras”. En una entrevista en el programa 8 al dia, la número dos del Gobierno central ha valorado así el acto de Mariano Rajoy este martes en Barcelona, del que ha dicho que no es un simple anuncio u oferta, porque “hemos venido a comprometernos”, ha garantizado.

Frente a las críticas de los miembros del Govern, Santamaría no ha querido entrar a fondo en el debate sobre si la inversión en infraestructuras del Gobierno había sido insuficiente hasta el momento. Ha pedido “evitar reproches” y mirar “hacia el futuro” al tiempo que ha recordado al conseller Josep Rull -que el lunes cifraba en más de 10.000 millones la deuda del Gobierno en esta materia- que “todos los presupuestos se vieron muy minorados” en los tiempos de crisis. “Hasta hace poco estábamos apagando fuegos, ahora tratamos de sembrar algo para que crecer”, ha subrayado.
Seguir leyendo...


La conferencia de Puigdemont en Harvard, desenmascarada




Los extractos más significativos en español, comentados:

"Todo este progreso se ha basado en la relación bilateral entre Cataluña y España [Nunca ha existido una relación jurídica bilateral institucional entre Cataluña y España.  Es tan sólo una reivindicación del nacionalismo], en la recuperación del autogobierno catalán y en el proceso de descentralización política. En 2010, sin embargo, la comprensión y el respeto mutuo sufrieron una rotura repentino, seguido por una regresión en los derechos civiles y en el poder político, y un regreso a tiempos pasados.

En julio de 2010, el Tribunal Constitucional español, fuertemente politizado y parcial [Si es tan así, la Generalitat y los partidos independentistas han colaborado activamente en ello aportando su correspondiente cuota de jueces], tumbó [por inconstitucionales]  los principales preceptos del Estatuto de Cataluña, una ley recientemente modificada que fija el funcionamiento del autogobierno de Cataluña. [De los 223 artículos del nuevo Estatuto de Cataluña, sólo dos fueron declarados totalmente inconstitucionales y doce lo fueron parcialmente]

Una modificación que actualizaba las relaciones políticas entre Cataluña y España, que fue aprobada por los parlamentos catalán y español y que había recibido un apoyo abrumador de los catalanes en un referéndum, con un 74% de los votos a favor.

En resumen, el Tribunal rompía, de facto, la relación bilateral que hasta aquellos momentos habían mantenido Cataluña y España [El Tribunal no rompía lo que no existía, dejando claro que un Estatuto no es la norma adecuada para vincular a las instituciones del Estado] y que había sido el medio del entendimiento y el progreso mutuo. Este es el mismo Tribunal que avala una Constitución que autoriza al Ejército a actuar contra sus propios ciudadanos, algo que sólo recoge otra constitución en toda Europa, la de Turquía. [Falso. Austria, por ejemplo, puede desplegar a su ejército para que ejecute las decisiones de su Tribunal Constitucional]

Un tribunal revocó una decisión política adoptada democráticamente. [No por ser democrática, sino por estar por encima de la ley, por ser ilegal e inconstitucional]

La Constitución española fue aprobada en referéndum, el Estatuto de Cataluña fue aprobado en referéndum, y el conflicto actual debe ser resuelto votando en un referéndum." [Cualquier referéndum sobre la secesión de una parte del territorio español, sin una reforma previa de la Constitución que lo permita, es inconstitucional. Y lo es aunque el referéndum lo convoque el presidente del Gobierno, con la autorización del Congreso de los Diputados y se realice en toda España. Así lo establece la Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 103/2008]


*********************
"Para la nación catalana, comprometida con los tratados fundacionales europeos, sus principios y su futuro, es difícil formar parte de un Estado español que ignora a menudo las leyes europeas; un Estado que algunos informes europeos acusan de ser uno de los más incumplidores de las normas de la Unión. Esto no sólo es injusto para nuestros socios europeos, sino que también demuestra que España es incapaz de responder a los desafíos a los que se enfrenta.

Los servicios diplomáticos españoles incluso han intentado abortar misiones oficiales de la Comisión Europea en España para analizar el cumplimiento de esta legalidad; un comportamiento sin precedentes e injustificable de un Estado miembro."


********************
"Lo que es normal en toda Europa, está prohibido en Cataluña. En uno de los parlamentos más antiguos de Europa, España actúa por la vía penal y denuncia su presidenta y la Mesa del Parlamento por haber abierto la puerta a este debate."


********************
"Hace unas semanas los expertos en derecho constitucional del Consejo de Europa, la Comisión de Venecia, consideraron que, con el objetivo de promover la percepción del Tribunal Constitucional como árbitro neutral y de fortalecer su independencia, el Gobierno español debía reconsiderar las modificaciones recientes que había hecho en la Ley del Tribunal Constitucional, que le otorgaban poderes ejecutivos. [Falso. El dictamen de la Comisión de Venecia refuerza la legitimidad de la regulación prevista en la LOTC]Este órgano jurisdiccional tiene ahora el poder legal para suspender mi gobierno sin juicio."


********************
"No podemos construir el país que queremos y que merecemos. Nuestras manos están atadas por unas leyes españolas obsoletas [Si son obsoletas, se cambian con una mayoría democrática en las Cortes Españolas en donde una gran cantidad de partidos, incluidos los nacionalistas, están representados] que no sirven al bienestar común.

Sólo dos de los muchos ejemplos que hay: la nueva normativa destinada a proteger el acceso a la electricidad para las familias vulnerables y la nueva regulación para facilitar la vivienda a familias desahuciadas sin recursos. Ambas acabaron en los tribunales."


********************
"Allí donde Cataluña tiene espacio para legislar, actúa. [Efectivamente, actúa creando estructuras de estado que son reiteradamente tumbadas por el ConstitucionalEsta es la razón por la que Cataluña tiene una ley sobre cambio climático, una de las más ambiciosas de Europa, mientras que España sigue con una mentalidad del siglo XX."

********************
"...en nuestro país, poner las urnas es motivo de inhabilitación política. En marzo de este año, mi predecesor, el presidente Artur Mas [Rebelde en la democracia y sumiso en la dictadura], conjuntamente con quien fue vicepresidenta del Gobierno de Cataluña y con quien fue consejera de Educación y, más tarde, con quien en vano fue el consejero de la Presidencia, han sido inhabilitados para ejercer cargos públicos y multados por una causa que nunca debió llegar a los tribunales.

Han sido condenados por haber permitido que el pueblo de Cataluña participara en una consulta democrática en noviembre de 2014. [Falso. Han sido condenados entre 1 y 2 años de inhabilitación no por poner urnas sino por desobedecer las resoluciones del Tribunal Constitucional] Un proceso participativo que obedecía a un compromiso entre la ciudadanía y las instituciones políticas catalanas, es decir, entre el pueblo y sus representados elegidos democráticamente con el objetivo de expresar su opinión.

De eso va todo, de poder expresar nuestra voz en una España que no quiere sentirnos, una España que no quiere escuchar a sus propios ciudadanos."


******************

Nuestra lucha es un reflejo de la lucha por los derechos civiles estadounidenses [Es tal el disparate que hace innecesario cualquier comentario]. las instituciones americanas han respetado la democracia y la voluntad de su gente adaptándose a los nuevos tiempo.

La Constitución de los Estados Unidos pertenece al pueblo norteamericano, no al revés. Se ha modificado hasta 27 veces. Hasta 27 veces se ha adaptado a los objetivos del pueblo estadounidense. Gracias a ello, la esclavitud fue abolida. Gracias a ello, las mujeres y los hombres hoy pueden votar. Gracias a ello, la segregación es cosa del pasado.

El Gobierno español debe escuchar su gente y respetar los derechos civiles.


**********************************************************




dilluns, 27 de març de 2017

En defensa de nuestro derecho a criticar el Islam


'La ideología a la que Khalid Masood se convirtió en prisión puede de hecho ser una perversión del Islam, pero es una versión de la misma'




MATT RIDLEY.- 'It is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism. It is a perversion of a great faith.” This is what the prime minister said last week in parliament. While I completely accept that the sins of extremists should never be visited on the vast majority of moderate believers, I am increasingly uneasy about how we handle the connection between religion and extremism. The ideology to which Khalid Masood was converted in prison may indeed be a perversion of Islam, but it is a version of it. We should not shy away from saying so.

After Nice, Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation wrote that saying such terrorism has nothing to do with Islam (as some do) is as dangerous as stating that it has everything to do with Islam. The terrorists in London, Paris, Brussels, Nice, Munich, Berlin, Würzburg, Ansbach, Orlando, San Bernardino, Sydney, Bali, New York, Bombay and many other places have been white, black and brown, rich, poor and middle class, male and female, gay and straight, immigrant and native, young and (now) older. The one thing they have in common is that they had been radicalised by religious preachers claiming to interpret the Koran.

Moreover, while a few sick individuals find within Islam justification for murder and terror, a far larger number find justification for misogyny and intolerance. We must be allowed to say this without being thought to criticise Muslims as people.

Islamist terrorism has become more frequent, but criticism of the faith of Islam, and of religion in general, seems to be becoming less acceptable, as if it were equivalent to racism or blasphemy. The charge of Islamophobia is too quickly levelled. Friday’s press release from Malia Bouattia, president of the National Union of Students, is a case in point. It failed to mention by name the murdered policeman Keith Palmer, and highlighted how Muslims “will be especially fearful of racism”. Race and religion are very different things.

I admire many religious people. I am prepared to accept that being religious can make some individuals better people, though, as a humanist, I also think it is possible and actually preferable to be moral without having faith. I am even open to the possibility that the best defence against extremism is a gentler version of religion rather than none at all — though I need to be convinced. But I think that, rather than there being good religion and bad religion, there is a spectrum of religious belief from virtuous, individualist morality at one end to collectivist, politicised violent terror at the other.




diumenge, 26 de març de 2017

El precio de fragmentar la ciudadanía en sus identidades



Cuando la misma imagen pierde su ostentosa identidad tribal y nos acerca al rostro de su identidad humana la interpretación puede ser absolutamente distinta...


...pero, nos guste o no, las señales de tribu interfieren. Al fin y al cabo, las identidades se ostentan para deslindar, para separar lo que nosotros somos de lo que son los demás. El reproche ha sido personalmente injusto y denunciable, tanto como difícil de evitar que la gente interprete los símbolos de la tribu en lugar de la persona. Ese es el precio de fragmentar la ciudadanía en todas y cada una de sus identidades. 
"Probablemente la estrategia de fondo del terrorismo islamista es provocar la mayor separación posible de la comunidad musulmana de las demás. Y funciona. Pero los asesinatos en modo industrial serán útiles en la medida en que haya comunidades claramente separadas. Es decir, necesitan imponer la “marca tribal”; y necesitan atacar a todos los posibles nexos de unión, como pueden ser los ateos musulmanes y los pocos reformistas que intentan hacer un islam más compatible con el mundo laico y de los ideales de los DDHH. Y eso es justamente lo que hacen.

El problema es muy gordo, y tienen muchas herramientas. Vaya, que van ganando por goleada. Prohibir las marcas de tribu sería muy incompatible con el espíritu liberal de dejar hacer. Pero tampoco es muy razonable ponerse una marca descomunal, inevitable de apreciar, señalando que eres no-nosotros, y pretender que se te interprete como se interpretaría a un sí-nosotros. Aunque sería un ejercicio intelectualmente fácil, también es un ejercicio demasiado antinatural. Los humanos no funcionan así. Las tribus son para separar, y para no entenderse. Si juegas a proclamar visiblemente que no soy de tu tribu, tendrás que aceptar que los malentendidos son una consecuencia inevitable. Especialmente si dentro de los tuyos hay un grupo muy activo y con gran facilidad de circulación, empeñado en sembrar la cizaña de la forma más dramática posible. La cizaña … y la sharia. Cualquier signo que huela a sharia va a provocar una interpretación en términos de sharia, no en términos de persona. Es lo que hacen las señales."

PLAZA MOYUA