Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Gore Vidal (1925-2012)


Gore Vidal's United States of fury , em The Independent (2009)

In Russian, the phrase "gore vidal" means "he has seen grief". As Gore Vidal is wheeled towards me across an empty London hotel lobby, it seems for the first time like an apt translation. In the eight years since I saw him last, he has lost his partner of 50 years, most of his friends, most of his enemies, and the use of his legs. The man I met then – bristling with his own brilliance, scattering witticisms around like confetti – has withered. His skin is like parchment, but the famous cheekbones are still sharp beneath the crags. "It is so cold in here," he says, by way of introduction. "So fucking cold."

Gore Vidal is not only grieving for his own dead circle and his fading life, but for his country. At 83, he has lived through one third of the lifespan of the United States. If anyone incarnates the American century that has ended, it is him. He was America's greatest essayist, one of its best-selling novelists and the wit at every party. He holidayed with the Kennedys, cruised for men with Tennessee Williams, was urged to run for Congress by Eleanor Roosevelt, co-wrote some of the most iconic Hollywood films, damned US foreign policy from within, sued Truman Capote, got fellated by Jack Kerouac, watched his cousin Al Gore get elected President and still lose the White House, and – finally, bizarrely – befriended and championed the Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh.

Tipos de família na Europa

Family Ties, por Frank Jacobs (New York Times):

The research considered family types based on two criteria. One, the relationship between parents and children. If children flee the nest at an early age, the family type can be said to be “liberal.” If they stay at home and under the authority of their parents long into adulthood, even after having married themselves, the relationship can be classified as “authoritarian.” Second criterion: the relationship among siblings. If they are treated equally (in inheritance law, for example), the relationship is classified as “equal,” but if one child is favored (the firstborn son, say), the relationship is “unequal.”

Combining the criteria results in five distinct family types:

* The “absolute nuclear” family type is both liberal and unequal. Children are totally emancipated, forming independent families of their own. The inheritance usually goes to one child, often a son.

* The “egalitarian nuclear” family type is both liberal and equal. Children are as emancipated and independent as in the previous type, but equal division of the inheritance encourages stronger parent-children relations before the passing of the parents.

* The “stem” family type is both authoritarian and unequal. Several generations live under one roof, with one child marrying to continue the line. The other children remain unmarried at home, or leave to get married.

* The “incomplete stem” family is as above, but with slightly more equal inheritance rules — an intermediate with the last family type.

* The “communitarian” family is both authoritarian and equal. All sons can marry and bring their wives into the ancestral home. The family inheritance is divided equitably among all children. (...)



Others argue that family type, even if superseded, lives on in the social structure it generates and can thus help explain present disparities in family size, wealth and inequality across Europe. The early independence of “nuclear” children made them more easily recruited for factory work than their “communitarian” counterparts, facilitating industrialization in the former areas and the persistence of agriculture in the latter. Unequal inheritance laws may have powered the drive towards education and training, making those areas better suited for switching between industries when the economic circumstances called for it.

By looking under the hood of Europe’s map, so to speak, this study may have stumbled upon one explanation for “regional disparities in Europe, which have persisted despite the interventions and transfers” of the European Union.

Para falar a verdade, essa teoria e a categorização parece-me muito fraquinha: para começar, nem é muito clara qual a diferença entre a "absolute nuclear family" e a "stem family" (afinal, se na "stem family" os filhos não-promogénitos deixam a casa dos pais se se casarem, isso não acaba por ser praticamente igual à "absolute nuclear familiy"?); e, se a revolução industrial começou numa região de "absolute nuclear family", hoje em dia as regiões mais atrasadas da Europa Ocidental parecem ser as de "egalitarian nuclear family".

Já agora, palpita-me que muito disso não passa de reflexos da estrutura de propriedade da terra - isto é, em sociedades que historicamente tenham sido de "camponeses sem terra" (sobretudo se forem trabalhadores à jorna), é natural que os filhos se tornem independentes dos pais quando começam a trabalhar; pelo contrários, nas regiões de pequena propriedade, é natural que fiquem a ajudar na quinta dos pais (a região do Portugal onde era mais tradicional o trabalho assalariado na agricultura é também aquela em que há mais nomes de família aparentemente derivados de alcunhas - será um sinal de laços intergeracionais pouco fortes, que levaria a que fosse mais comum identificar as pessoas por uma alcunha do que por um apelido vindo do trisavô?).

[O estudo original é "Family Types and the Persistence of Regional Disparities in Europe", por Gilles Duranton, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose e Richard Sandall]

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

"Números", "humanidades" e criatividade

Uma teoria que há algum tempo que tenho e que me lembrei por causa deste post n'O Insurgente: há mais espaço para a criatividade e para a imaginação nas "ciências com contas" do que nas "ciências humanas" (note-se que estou incluindo a Economia nas "ciências com contas" - embora seja uma "ciência social", raramente é designada como uma "ciência humana"; e, de qualquer forma, quando se fala da suposta oposição entre os "números" e "X", o "X" costuma ser designado como "humanidades" ou "ciências humanas", não como "ciências sociais").

O meu raciocinio - nas "ciências com contas", uma pessoa pode vir com uma teoria completamente nova e contra-intuitiva que, desde que o raciocinio lógico por detrás faça sentido (nomeadamente, desde que as contas estejam correctas), a ideia tenderá a ser aceite como potencialmente válida pela "academia" - um exemplo pode ser a "teoria da relatividade": um obscuro escriturário suiço publicou uma teoria que ia contra grande parte daquilo em que se acreditava até então, e como as contas dele faziam sentido, a comunidade científica aceitou a sua teoria como credível e creio que até lhe arranjaram um lugar numa universidade.

Pelo contrário, nas "ciências humanas" a avaliação de uma teoria como "fazendo sentido" ou "não fazendo sentido" depende muito mais da subjectividade (em vez de da lógica pura), logo é de esperar que teorias fora do "mainstream" (seja esse "mainstream" qual for) tenham mais dificuldade em serem aceites (já que é muito mais fácil rejeitar uma teoria com argumentos do género "essa teoria não me convence", enquanto que nas "ciências com contas" é preciso demonstrar que a teoria é logicamente incoerente para a rejeitar).

Já agora, e mudando um pouco (mas só um pouco) de assunto: em cursos de formação e afins sobre "criatividade" por vezes, entre as supostas "barreira à criatividade", é referido "pensamento lógico" (ou excesso de "pensamento lógico") - isto para não falar das teorias pseudo-científicas que supostamente dividem o cérebro entre a área da "lógica" e a área da "critividade"; a mim parece-me que, se existe uma barreira à criatividade, é o pensamento ilógico - afinal, um dos argumentos clássicos contra novas ideias costuma ser o "isso até parece funcionar em teoria, mas acho que na prática não resulta"; ou seja, frequentemente são os "inovadores" que vão pelo raciocinio lógico-dedutivo e os "tradicionalistas" que vão pela intuição (não o oposto).

[Embora eu desconfie que muitas vezes - sobretudo neste contexto - as pessoas usam a expressão "lógica" quando o que querem dizer é "senso comum", o que é paradoxal porque "lógica" e "senso comum" são conceitos quase opostos: a definição de "senso comum" é, basicamente, "aquilo em que acreditamos intuitivamente sem precisar de pensar no assunto"; aqui temos um exemplo interessante - no contexto de uma doença mental - de conflito entre "lógica" e "senso comum"]

O movimento "Occupy" como escola de anarquia

Occupy as Anarchy 101, por (Center for a Stateless Society):

One of Occupy Richmond’s goals has been to create a space for open, direct dialogue among citizens. That, I’d argue, is the real significance of the occupation: the unconditional demand for a deliberative body of residents unmediated by politicians’ agendas or corporate money. Only such an out-of-the-box, fully bottom-up movement can arrive at the kinds of solutions that transcend the rigid, entrenched special interests and divisive ideological identities that our system has adapted itself to serve. The marks of anarchist philosophy are clear here.

Working in a prefigurative organization that attempts to model the kind of relationships they want to see in the world, many liberals have now been exposed to the anarchist approach through the Occupy movement. They can see how frightened the institutions they sought to merely fix are at their exercise of liberty. Witnessing that fear, and seeing its results as genuine violence, makes it difficult to believe that aggregated power can be reliably used for good. Regardless of which candidate is the lesser evil, the machine they’re elected to command is too destructive to reform.

Anarchism is not about converting people to an ideology; it is simply the realization available to all that the answers to our problems lie in our thinking, the bonds with others we form, and the way we form those bonds. Organizing outside the capitalist hegemony unites all kinds of activists against the establishment, the state, and capital. The occupation not only realizes anarchist principles; it has provided the lessons on the urgency of resistance as well as hints at what is possible for us to build together. More and more liberals will realize bottom-up, do-it-yourself self-governance is what they wanted in the first place.
[convém náo nos esquecermos que, em americanês, "liberal" quer dizer "centro-esquerda"]

Heterodoxias económicas

Can you please read a first year textbook?, por Nick Rowe:

You will recognise yourself from my description. (Or you will recognise others who fit this description).

You are probably very smart. You are probably very well-educated -- either formally, or self-educated, and probably both. You spend a lot of time on the internet reading economics blogs and commenting on those blogs. You maybe even have a blog of your own, where you write about economics topics. You are probably politically engaged. You are probably a lefty, but may be a righty, or someone who is not easily categorised on that political spectrum. You probably think of yourself as a critic of economics, or a critic of what you see as orthodox economics. You are probably sympathetic to what you see as heterodox economics.

But you have never once read a first year economics textbook. (...)

I think you really really should read a first year economics textbook. (...)

Because, at the very least, you will better understand what is and is not an idea that is seen as "heterodox" by the people you are criticising.

O fim do trabalho não-especializado?

No Mito & Realidade, é feita referência a um CEO de uma empresa qualquer que diz que a tecnologia vai acabar com o trabalho não-especializado.

Acho que há aqui uma confusão entre os conceitos de "trabalho não-especializado" e "trabalho não-criativo" - a mim parece-me que, quando muito, o que o progresso tecnológico poderá eventualmente acabar será com o segundo, não com o primeiro (aliás, no post até é feita referência a um computador que está a estudar para ser médico quando for grande - o que me parece contar como trabalho especializado). Para falar a verdade, até suspeito que muito trabalho altamente especializado até será mais fácil de substituir por um algoritmo informático do que o trabalho não-especializado (onde muitas vezes é necessário conhecimento tácito difícil de formalizar através de um programa).

Ainda a respeito disto, 3 artigos de Paul Krugman (Autor! Autor!, Falling Demand for Brains? e White Collars Turn Blue), um de David Autor (o "Autor" em "Autor! Autor!"), Frank Levy e Richard Murnane (The Skill Content of Recent Technological Content, pdf) e, já agora, o meu post Ainda acerca da "sociedade do conhecimento".

Monday, July 30, 2012

Um artigo sobre a(s) oposição(ões) síria(s)

Divided They Stand - An Overview of Syria’s Political Opposition Factions [pdf], por Aron Lund (Olof Palme International Center).

A quem se deve a liberdade?

If You Love Your Freedom, Thank a Dirty Effing Hippie, por Kevin Carson:

Every “patriotic” holiday, columnists and editorial page editors trot out that same tiresome column: “It’s not the protestor that gives us free speech, it’s the soldier …” That’s exactly backward.(...)

Every single bit of freedom we have comes from the troublemakers, rabble-rousers, pariahs, the people utterly devoid of respectability — the Dirty Effing Hippies, in Nixon’s parlance — and their willingness to say things the government doesn’t want them to. Our freedom is expanded and defended by the very types of people who are spat upon — run out on a rail — by “good respectable citizens,” and tossed in jail by local cops. Our freedoms come from the people who were imprisoned by John Adams under the Sedition Act, the thousands of Wobblies who packed local jails during the Free Speech Campaign, and Breanna Manning who is tortured daily in prison for exposing the American government’s war crimes to the world.
No caso português, à primeira vista poderíamos pensar que é mesmo aos soldados que devemos a liberdade, mas, se pensarmos bem, essa liberdade foi conseguida exactamente quando os soldados (bem, os oficiais intermédios) se comportaram como contestatários em vez de como soldados (e provavelmente muito influenciados pelos contestatários que haviam sido integrados à força nas Forças Armadas).

Liberdade e frugalidade

Freedom and Frugality, por Wendy McElroy (via António Costa Amaral):

A few years ago, my view of frugality changed due to an obvious realization that I had never fully grasped before. Material goods cost money; money is acquired in exchange for my time; my time is literally my life. If X costs $100 and I make $25 an hour, then X costs me four hours of life. Or rather, it costs four hours plus whatever time is consumed by the transaction costs of making money, such as the time and expense of a commute.

This was a paradigm shift for me. I ceased viewing possessions in terms of money and saw them in terms of time. And my time is a scarce good. The hours available can sometimes feel boundless, and it is easy to fall into the trap of valuing each unit as if it were part of an infinite supply. Of course, it is not. There are only so many hours left for me to live.

With no morbidity, I apply a version of “marginal utility” to those hours. This economic law says that a person values the first unit of a thing according to its highest use and values subsequent units less. For example, if you have one unit of water, then you value it highly for staving off dehydration and death. If you have a large number of units, then you value the last one for watering a house plant. You would be willing to spend far more for the first unit than for the last. I try to view my hours as though each one were a first unit and, so, highly valuable.

When I look in my closet, many possessions now represent wasted time: a dress I never wear, shoes that go with nothing… I won’t waste more time reproaching myself, but I need to learn a lesson from that closet. I traded irreplaceable units of my life for possessions I do not value; I call these possessions “the useless shoes of life.” They are things that are neither necessary nor worth the time I traded to acquire them. Instead, I could have been reading or writing, laughing with friends or watching movies with my husband.

And then there are the purchases I will never regret: books, DVDs, my sporty little econocar, our farm, the ingredients for a superb meal. Those items provide a utility that is well worth the cost. And yes, I include pleasure as a “utility.” Pleasure is one of the most useful things in the world. It makes you spring out of bed with energy in the morning; it makes you fall asleep with a smile on your face at night. But even pleasure should be balanced against the cost in time and purchased at bargain rates, if possible.

People respond to the idea of possessions representing units of their lives in different ways.

Some people redouble their efforts to earn more and so reduce the amount of time that any one purchase represents. This is a return to the traditional American dream: Work hard and prosper economically. I wish these people the best, but their choice is not mine. At this point, I find it difficult to understand why anyone would spend years at a job they don’t enjoy in order to own a bigger home than they can use, especially since the upkeep absorbs more time and cash. The trade-off doesn’t make sense.

A espionagem israelita e os EUA

US sees Israel, tight Mideast ally, as spy threat (Associated Press):

The CIA station chief opened the locked box containing the sensitive equipment he used from his home in Tel Aviv, Israel, to communicate with CIA headquarters in Virginia, only to find that someone had tampered with it. He sent word to his superiors about the break-in.

The incident, described by three former senior U.S. intelligence officials, might have been dismissed as just another cloak-and-dagger incident in the world of international espionage, except that the same thing had happened to the previous station chief in Israel.

It was a not-so-subtle reminder that, even in a country friendly to the United States, the CIA was itself being watched.

[Via Outside the Beltway]

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Ainda outros custos do "controle de armas"

[Nesta custos específicos do contexto norte-americano]

The Price of Gun Control, por Dan Baum (Harper's Magazine), via Reason Hit and Run:

Gun-control advocates have their own studies and statistics, of course, and off we go down the rabbit hole, shouting at one another about the benefits of gun control. But let me add a parallel concern: What about the costs? Why should gun control be exempt from a cost-benefit analysis? Gun-control advocates brush away evidence of gun laws’ dubious value with the argument that if even one life could be saved, it’s worth trying. What’s the harm?

The harm is that 40 percent of Americans own guns, and like it or not, they identify with them, personally. Guns stand in for a whole range of values—individualism, strength, American exceptionalism—that many gun owners hold dear. Tell a gun owner that he cannot be trusted to own a firearm—particularly if you are an urban pundit with no experience around guns—and what he hears is an insult. Add to this that the bulk of the gun-buying public is made up of middle-aged white men with less than a college degree, and now you’re insulting a population already rubbed raw by decades of stagnant wages.

The harm we’ve done by messing with law-abiding Americans’ guns is significant. In 2010, I drove 11,000 miles around the United States talking to gun guys (for a book, to be published in the spring, that grew out of an article I wrote for this magazine), and I met many working guys, including plumbers, parks workers, nurses—natural Democrats in any other age—who wouldn’t listen to anything the Democratic party has to say because of its institutional hostility to guns. I’d argue that we’ve sacrificed generations of progress on health care, women’s and workers’ rights, and climate change by reflexively returning, at times like these, to an ill-informed call to ban firearms, and we haven’t gotten anything tangible in return. Aside from what it does to the progressive agenda, needlessly vilifying guns—and by extension, their owners—adds to the rancor that has us so politically frozen and culturally inflamed. Enough.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Interessante analogia

Kill the Euro now?, por Nick Rowe:

The Economist's Greg Ip (HT Mark Thoma) relays the most optimistic scenario for the Euro, from Montreal's Bank Credit Analyst. Short version: Greece leaves, and the rest are so scared they form a fiscal and banking union.

This scenario is what I called a "shotgun wedding". If the people of Europe want an ever closer union, or if an ever closer union evolves naturally out of a sense of common identity, that's OK. But being duped and forced into marriage because the PIIGS are all pregnant and Germany is the father, though all of them thought they were just holding hands and nobody told them that sharing a common currency was quite such an intimate relationship -- is another thing entirely. The EU's legitimacy and governability, already shaky, would suffer.

Agora os Russos e Iranianos começavam a apoiar a oposição

Saudi riot police fire live rounds on Shiite protesters in Qatif - reports

Free Syrian Army


For many months, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has depicted the militants creating havoc across his nation as “armed gangs,” “foreign terrorists,” and simply just, “terrorists.” During a 2011 interview in Damascus with Barbra Walters, Walters feigned indignation when hearing these labels, insisting that these were people simply seeking “democracy” and “freedom.”
It turns out months later, it was President Assad who has been vindicated, and Walters’ disrespectful, curt condemnation exposed as the same brand of war propaganda that has mired the West in over a decade of ceaseless, bloody, bankrupting wars and interventions.
The FSA are Terrorists
AFP now reports that the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) militants who had attempted to overrun the city of Aleppo in Syria’s north on July 17, in coordination with an assassination bombing and a similar militant attack on Damascus, are now trapped in the city center, awaiting Syrian Army reinforcements expected to close in and neutralize them. An AFP correspondent embedded with the terrorists reported that, “two men, accused of belonging to pro-government “shabiha” militia, were summarily dispatched in the street, each with a bullet to the head.”
By this of course AFP means, two civilians were rounded up and shot in the head – killed in cold blood in the streets.
BBC’s Ian Pannell also rode in with FSA terrorists during the initial attack on Aleppo, which is by all accounts a pro-Army, pro-Syrian city. Pannell described scenes of FSA militants “seeking revenge” as they too rounded up men “suspected” of being “shabiha.” The men were unarmed, terrified, and had weapons discharged at their feet as they knelt on the ground. Pannell doesn’t tell us if this group of men were “dispatched” as well, preferring to paper over what appeared to be an atrocity in the making by stating, “there is little justice on either side.”
It appears the term suspected “shabiha” has become analogous of the Western media’s use of the term “African mercenaries” in Libya during NATO destabilization and regime change operations there last year. These “African mercenaries” were lynched, beheaded, shot, burned, and hacked to pieces, just as the FSA is now doing to suspected “shabiha.”

Photo: Images and reportseventually trickled out as NATO-backed genocide unfolded throughout Tripoli’s streets, indicating the destruction of infrastructure and the specific targeting of black Libyans written off by the corporate media as “suspected mercenaries.” Benghazi rebels have been long reported to harbor extremist ideologies and an intense ethnic & racial hatred.
….
It would later turn out these black Africans were not mercenaries, but citizens who had lived in Libya for generations fighting desperately for their lives against sectarian extremists intolerant of their complexion and creed. Likewise, suspected “shabiha” are Syrians unwilling or unable, because of their ethnicity or creed, to capitulate to roving bands of foreign-armed sectarian extremists.
The FSA Include Foreign-Fighters
CNN, whose Ivan Watson also accompanied FSA terrorists over the Turkish-Syrian border and into Aleppo revealed that indeed foreign fighters were amongst the militants. It was admitted that:
Meanwhile, residents of the village where the Syrian Falcons were headquartered said there were fighters of several North African nationalities also serving with the brigade’s ranks.
A volunteer Libyan fighter has also told CNN he intends to travel from Turkey to Syria within days to add a “platoon” of Libyan fighters to armed movement.
On Wednesday, CNN’s crew met a Libyan fighter who had crossed into Syria from Turkey with four other Libyans. The fighter wore full camouflage and was carrying a Kalashnikov rifle. He said more Libyan fighters were on the way.
The foreign fighters, some of them are clearly drawn because they see this as … a jihad. So this is a magnet for jihadists who see this as a fight for Sunni Muslims.
CNN’s reports provide bookends to earlier admissions that large numbers of Libyan terroristsflush with NATO cash and weapons had headed to Syria with known terrorist commandersmaking the arrangements.
Western Media is Complicit in Covering Up War Crimes
Not only are these FSA militants committing atrocities, they are doing so in front of representatives of Western media, who are demonstratively excusing, covering up, or downplaying their war crimes. Additionally, these media personalities are attempting to downplay the significant implications of foreign-fighters crossing Syria’s borders and conducting armed attacks on a heavily populated city – implications that run contra to the West’s narrative regarding their support of the FSA against the Syrian state.
By doing so they’ve become accomplices, providing impunity for the actions of terrorists, and allowing the governments of the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, an ignoble alliance, to continue fueling this violent, foreign-contrived band of militants. And by doing so, these media representatives have undermined their journalistic immunity, putting the lives of real journalists the world over at risk.
Image: An approximation of areas where fighting has been taking place in Aleppo, Syria. Clearly during the initial offensive by the FSA, they came in from 2 of the city’s main highways, both leading to the Turkish-Syrian border. It appears that a large number of fighters have been trapped inside the center of the city, surrounded by Syrian military forces. This was not an “uprising” but rather an invasion by armed militants from across the Turkish-Syrian border. It is unclear whether a significant number of additional militants are on their way.
….
And it will be this corps of professional deceivers who continue their efforts to pave way for wider NATO intervention to fulfill US ambitions to carve out “safe havens” in northern Syria form which to prolong the current bloodbath.
Perhaps this is why Russia – condemned by these very nations for its “inaction” in supporting the subversion of Syria – stated quite clearly that the West, specifically the US, was “justifying terrorism against the Syrian government.”
The West is hemorrhaging legitimacy and finds itself in an untenable position where it can neither go forward nor back without incurring tremendous, catastrophic consequences – consequences millions of people across the Middle East as well as across the West will pay for in blood and treasure. It should be remembered who exactly brought us to this precipice and why - corporate-financier interests, their stables of policy makers, and the corporate-media – all for the sake of pursuing narrow-minded, self-serving geopolitical hegemony.

War Without Mercy on Syria

by Stephen Lendman Western media misreport what's happening in Syria and why. Propaganda substitutes for truth and full disclosure. Syrians are struggling to prevent Western conquest, exploitation, and control. They're fighting for their lives to stay free. At issue isn't whether Assad's government is democratic, despotic or anything in between. Its sovereign independence made it vulnerable. Washington tolerates no governments it doesn't control. Replacing them with puppet regimes is policy. Whether Assad can hold out and prevail isn't known. Most Syrians depend on him. The longer conflict persists, the greater his support. Who else can Syrians turn to for help? They want no part of becoming another pro-Western vassal state. They know the daily horrors Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans face. Syria was calm and peaceful until Washington unleashed its dogs last year. Daily violence, mass killing and destruction followed. It's the American way. Media scoundrels support it. Syria's conflict isn't an uprising, revolution or civil war. These characterizations distort reality. There's nothing civil about what's ongoing. Washington orchestrated everything. Its bloodstained hands control the conflict. At issue is naked Washington-led Western aggression. Key NATO allies and regional partners are involved. Insurgents are Washington proxies. Protracted violence and bloodshed persist. Imperial wars are called liberating ones. Western end game strategy calls for total war if other methods fail. Washington wages them two ways. In Afghanistan and Iraq, US forces are involved. In Libya, a combination of air assets and ground proxies were used. Protracted conflict persists. Daily violence ravages the country. Media scoundrels ignore it. They report little about Iraq and Afghanistan. They let nightmarish conditions pass beneath their radar. Only wealth, privilege and dominance matter. Charnel house conditions go unacknowledged. So far, Western proxies alone battle Syrian forces. Despite heavy weapons, training and direction, military regulars outmatch them. Expect eventual direct Western intervention. Electoral politics dictates timing. Voltaire Network's Thierry Meyssan is right. Reagan's Contra war 2.0 ravages Syria. Death squads employed are today's Contras. In the 1980s, they battled Nicaragua's Sandinista government. Washington enlisted, armed, trained, funded and directed them. Anastasio Somoza ruled Nicaragua despotically. He ran it like a US colony. In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) ousted his regime after years of conflict. In 1981, Reagan authorized covert CIA intervention. Sandinistas were falsely called Moscow puppets. Contrarevolucionarios (Contras) were recruited. Many were former cutthroat Somoza National Guard regulars. They became Washington proxy death squads. Contra wars raged throughout the decade. From Honduran bases they conducted cross-border terrorist raids. Nicaraguans suffered greatly. Many thousands died. Managua's economy was devastated. Resources needed for defense left little for domestic needs. In 1988, A New York Times op-ed headlined "Wrong From the Start; Reagan's Contra War, Reagan's Failure," saying: Reagan's "seven-year record in Nicaragua is a chronicle of deceit and incompetence in pursuit of an unwinnable war." Expect nothing comparable today about Obama's war on Syria. Times correspondents, commentators and editorial writers march in lockstep. They supported Reagan throughout the decade. Perhaps Iran-Contra caused the above change of heart."

Thursday, July 26, 2012

"[Jorge Luis] Borges, era un anarcocapitalista"

Martín Krause: "Borges era un anarcocapitalista", La Gazeta "Argentina, su país, siempre ha tenido grandes pensadores liberales que ha combinado con los peores políticos del mundo, ¿por qué esa dualidad? Argentina ha tenido grandes intelectuales liberales, pero también grandes intelectuales socialistas. El progresismo intelectual siempre ha florecido en Argentina y controla el mundo cultural. El último gran liberal que tuvimos en ese campo, y que a la izquierda le costó muchísimo aceptar, fue Borges, que era un anarcocapitalista. Ellos no podían entender cómo la mayor estrella de la literatura nacional pudiera pensar de esa forma. Pero, por regla general, el mundillo cultural argentino siempre ha estado influenciado por el progresismo, que siempre ha mirado a Europa. A este tipo de intelectual le encanta Francia y esos intelectuales franceses que, cuanto más complicado escriba y hable, mejor. Esto ha generado un sistema político perverso, en el que los que llegan, por el mero hecho de llegar muestran que han dejado sus principios en la puerta."

Sobre armas e "lei do mais forte"

Acerca deste assunto, uma história que o meu pai uma vez contou, ocorrida em Moçambique, imagino que por volta de 1970 (não sei se ele assistiu à cena ou se, mais provavelmente, ouviu contar; nem sei se os pormenores são verdadeiros):

Um "chefe de posto" do interior, já idoso e não muito imponente fisicamente, veio passar uns dias de folga à cidade (a então Lourenço Marques); num café ou restaurante ou bar ou coisa assim, uns quantos "matulões" começaram a se meter com ele, ao que ele respondeu:

- Eu vim aqui para me divertir, não para me chatear; se têm algum problema, vamos lá fora, aquele terreno resolver o assunto.

Chegados ao tal terreno, já os outros se preparavam para dar uma "carga de pancada" ao senhor, quando este saca de uma pistola. Perante isto, pediram-lhe desculpa e deixaram-no em paz, após o que este comentou:

- Pois, desde que inventaram estas coisinhas já não há homens fortes.

Só o governo/estado poderia ter criado a Internet?

"Atrios" (Duncan Black) argumenta (ou acha que argumenta) que apenas o governo (ou o Estado? Creio que "government" em american english não é exactamente a mesma coisa que o nosso "governo") poderia ter criado a Internet (via Brad DeLong):

I think the aspect of the "government invented the internet" which isn't emphasized enough is that it isn't just some random fluke that it was born out of various public and publicly financed entities. A private company would not have created it. Before the internet (or www, depending on precisely what we're talking about) we had various pre-internets, which were all cool enough in their own way and offered various applications, information, and services to people. In some ways the were superior to the internet of old, but they weren't the "information superhighway" which we could all just hook into any way we wanted. It wasn't so much the technology, though it was that too, it was the idea, and it isn't an idea a for-profit company would have pursued in nearly the same way.

In some ways we're seeing the return to the pre-internet version, though the actual internet still exists. Facebook polices content, and people expect them to for reasons I can't fathom. Blogger doesn't. Not yet.
Em primeiro lugar, não me parece que ele apresente um argumento convincente que uma "for-profit company" não iria desenvolver a Internet nos moldes em que esta existe; mas, mesmo como isso fosse verdade, como se passa da ideia de que uma "for-profit company" não criaria a Internet para as conclusões de que uma empresa privada não desenvolveria a Internet e de que só o governo o poderia fazer? Afinal, no mundo não existem só Estados e empresas com fins lucrativos.

Aliás, se em vez da "net", estivermos a falar da "web", nem é liquido que tenha sido desenvolvida pelo Estado - sim, Tim Berners-Lee desenvolveu-a enquanto trabalhava no CERN, mas largamente como um projecto pessoal, e parece que parte do trabalho até foi feito em casa.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Armas e violência

Na discussão ali em baixo, acabou por vir à baila um estudo feito por Richard Florida sobre as causas da "gun violence" nos EUA.

Um eventual problema desse estudo é que os dados "include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes", o que me levou a comentar «Seria interessante saber, da tal alta mortalidade por "gun violence" no Alasca, quanta são acidentes de caça.»

Para ver melhor isso, fiz uma comparação, para o ano de 2008, entre os assassínios por estado nos EUA e as tais "mortes por arma de fogo" - claro que os assassínios podem ser feitos à faca ou com estricnina, e haverá muitos casos de "mortes violentas por arma de fogo" que não contam com assassínio; no entanto, é de esperar que haja uma associação significativa entre o nível de assassínios num estado e as mortes violentas por arma de fogo (mesmo incluindo em auto-defesa ou em acções policiais):

 


assassínios "gun deaths"
Alabama 7,6 17,6
Alaska 4,1 20,9
Arizona 6,3 14,0
Arkansas 5,7 15,6
California 5,8 8,5
Colorado 3,2 10,3
Connecticut 3,5 5,6
Delaware 6,5 10,9
Florida 6,4 12,4
Georgia 6,6 12,3
Hawaii 1,9 3,1
Idaho 1,5 11,5
Illinois 6,1 8,4
Indiana 5,1 11,3
Iowa 2,5 7,3
Kansas 4,0 9,7
Kentucky 4,6 13,3
Louisiana 11,9 18,5
Maine 2,4 8,5
Maryland 8,8 11,8
Massachusetts 2,6 3,4
Michigan 5,4 10,8
Minnesota 2,1 7,0
Mississippi 8,1 19,4
Missouri 7,7 13,8
Montana 2,4 15,7
Nebraska 3,8 8,4
Nevada 6,3 15,6
New Hampshire 1,0 6,7
New Jersey 4,3 5,0
New Mexico 7,2 14,8
New York 4,3 4,9
North Carolina 6,5 12,5
North Dakota 0,5 8,8
Ohio 4,7 9,7
Oklahoma 5,8 14,1
Oregon 2,2 9,7
Pennsylvania 5,6 10,7
Rhode Island 2,8 3,9
South Carolina 6,8 13,4
South Dakota 3,2 10,5
Tennessee 6,6 15,6
Texas 5,6 10,9
Utah 1,4 9,4
Vermont 2,7 8,1
Virginia 4,7 10,3
Washington 2,9 8,7
West Virginia 3,3 12,7
Wisconsin 2,6 7,7
Wyoming 1,9 17,1

No caso das taxas, o vermelho quer dizer uma taxa de homicídios ou de mortes por arma de fogo significativamente acima (um desvio padrão) da média nacional; verde significativamente abaixo. No caso dos estados, vermelho quer dizer "muitos homicidios e muitas mortes por arma de fogo", verde o contrário, amarelo "poucos homicídios comparativamente ao que seria de esperar face às mortes por arma de fogo" e azul o contrário. Em principio, será nos estados "amarelos" que haverá muitas mortes "não-violentas" por uso de armas (suicídios e acidentes), pelo menos se estiver certa a minha intuição de que a taxa de homicidios será uma boa proxy para o nível geral de violência - e, realmente, muitos desses estados (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, etc - basicamente, as Montanhas Rochosas e sítios parecidos) são os estados em que, à partida, será de esperar mais mortes por acidentes de caça e afins (e, já agora, que as pessoas aproveitam a arma que têm no armário para se suicidar em vez de recorrerem ao veneno ou aos bicos de gás abertos).

Claro que o ideal seria mesmo ter a informação desagregada sobre as componentes das tais mortes por arma de fogo...

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Porque o toureiro escolheu voluntaria e conscientemente ser toureiro?

Pergunta o Renato Teixeira - "Qual a ideia, por exemplo, de combater as touradas com imagens do touro a furar o toureiro, como se o show uma vez invertido já tivesse piada? Qual o sentido que alguém que se importa com a dor dos bichos, faça gáudio do sofrimento dos homens?"