Group items tagged

A consultant who worked for the billionaire Koch brothers claims that they see the funding of thinktanks "as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves".

From the beginning, senior journalists on the Telegraph, the Times and the Daily Mail volunteered their services. Every Saturday, in a wine bar called the Cork and Bottle, Margaret Thatcher's researchers and leader writers and columnists from the Times and Telegraph met staff from the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs. Over lunch, they "planned strategy for the week ahead". These meetings would "co-ordinate our activities to make us more effective collectively". The journalists would then turn the institute's proposals into leader columns while the researchers buttonholed shadow ministers.

As Pirie's history progresses, all references to funding cease. Apart from tickets donated by British Airways, no sponsors are named beyond the early 1980s. While the institute claims to campaign on behalf of "the open society", it is secretive and unaccountable. Today it flatly refuses to say who funds it.

That, despite Ecuador’s diplomatic efforts, countries which have been asked togive adequate safeguards for the protection and safety for the life of Mr. Assange have refused to facilitate them; That Ecuadorian authorities are certain of the possibility that Mr. Assange could be extradited to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity; That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights; That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defense; Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed upon during the investigation; Ecuador has observed that Mr. Assange lacks the protection and assistance that should be received from the State of which he is a citizen;

“Persons who find themselves in a situation of asylum and refuge shall enjoy special  protection to ensure the full exercise of their rights. The State shall respect and ensure the principle of non-refoulement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement], and shall provide emergency legal and humanitarian assistance.”

In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hindrance, an open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include that after facing his legal responsibilities in Sweden, that he would not be extradited to a third country; that is, ensuring that the Specialty Rule [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030114/am/30114s01.htm] is not waived. Unfortunately, despite repeated exchanges of messages, the UK at no time showed signs of wanting to reach a political compromise, and merely repeated the content of legal texts.

The decision – if it comes – will mark the end of a turbulent process that on Wednesday night saw Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, raging against perceived threats from Britain to "storm" the embassy and warning that such a "dangerous precedent" would be met with "appropriate responses in accordance with international law".

Ecuador, as a state that respects rights and justice and is a democratic and peaceful nation state, rejects in the strongest possible terms the explicit threat of the British official communication."This is unbecoming of a democratic, civilised and law-abiding state. If this conduct persists, Ecuador will take appropriate responses in accordance with international law."If the measures announced in the British official communication materialise they will be interpreted by Ecuador as a hostile and intolerable act and also as an attack on our sovereignty, which would require us to respond with greater diplomatic force."Such actions would be a blatant disregard of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and of the rules of international law of the past four centuries."It would be a dangerous precedent because it would open the door to the violation of embassies as a declared sovereign space." Under international law, diplomatic posts are considered the territory of the foreign nation.

Assange denies the allegations against him, but fears he will be sent to the United States if he goes to Sweden. An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Assange inside the London embassy was rejected.A former computer hacker, Assange enraged Washington in 2010 when WikiLeaks published secret US diplomatic cables, has been taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy since 19 June.If Ecuador does give Assange asylum, it is difficult to see how the WikiLeaks boss could physically leave the closely watched embassy and head to an airport without being arrested by British police.

les changements climatiques deviendront-ils un bouc émissaire fantomatique pour masquer la crise économique et sociale d'une société minée par les délocalisations industrielles et financières, la spéculation, les inégalités... ? Même en présence d'ouragans et de sécheresses, quelle est la véritable source des pires problèmes, si ce n'est la situation sociale qui fait payer les conséquences par les couches les moins « favorisées » de la population ?

Certes, si la justesse des actuels modèles climatiques est actuellement mise en cause, cela ne signifie pas pour autant que des conclusions opposées à l'actuelle théorie de l'influence humaine sur le climat finiront nécessairement par s'imposer. Tout simplement, des questions essentielles en la matière restent ouvertes et le travail de recherche doit se poursuivre.

Mais pourquoi un Prix Nobel aussi « rapide » que celui accordé en 2007 à Al Gore et au GIEC ? De notre modeste point de vue, l'interrogation persiste après examen détaillé de la page de la Fondation Nobel consacrée à ce prix : http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/20..., et des différents communiqués, motivations et interventions auxquels elle renvoie. Et si quatre ans plus tard, Al Gore débite des discours à base de « pseudo-science » et de « Bullshit ! » à l'adresse des avis discordants, que convient-il d'en penser ? Voici la prose litigieuse de l'ancien Vice-Président des Etats-Unis : « They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message : "This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes." Bullshit! "It may be sun spots." Bullshit! "It’s not getting warmer." Bullshit ! ».

Mme Lagarde a mis le feu aux poudres en estimant dans une interview au quotidien britannique The Guardian que "les Grecs devraient commencer par s'entraider mutuellement", et ce en "payant tous leurs impôts". La directrice du FMI, évoquant "tous ces gens qui tentent en permanence d'échapper à l'impôt", s'est ensuite dit moins préoccupée par leur sort que par celui des enfants d'Afrique. "Je pense davantage à ces enfants d'une école d'un petit village du Niger qui n'ont que deux heures de cours par jour, qui partagent une chaise pour trois et qui cherchent passionnément à avoir accès à l'éducation, poursuit-elle. Je pense à eux en permanence, parce que je pense qu'ils ont davantage besoin d'aide que la population d'Athènes."

Christine Lagarde véhicule un cliché : les Européens du Sud, irresponsables, qui ont profité de l'euro pendant dix ans, doivent désormais payer. Pour le Guardian, la directrice du FMI feint néanmoins d'oublier que les emprunteurs ne sont imprudents que s'ils trouvent... des prêteurs imprudents. Et de rappeler qu'à l'été 2010, aux prémices de la crise de l'euro, alors que Christine Lagarde était ministre de l'économie et des finances, les banques françaises étaient les plus exposées en Grèce.

The showdown over union rights that has paralysed politics in Wisconsin is spreading to other American states, threatening to trigger a national "workers war" of a kind not seen since Ronald Reagan fired air traffic controllers en masse 30 years ago. The State Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, was overflowing for the 10th day yesterday by protesters infuriated by legislation being pushed by the newly elected Governor Scott Walker which would strip most collective-bargaining rights from state workers, including teachers and librarians. Governor Walker is serving notice he will begin mass layoffs next week unless Democrats who have fled the state to avoid voting on the law return soon.

The law in question would end the ability of public workers to negotiate collectively for anything except salaries.

Working people wanted to throw off the chains that Karl Marx had claimed were shackling them – and join the bourgeoisie which he hated. Their analysis of their situation was essentially correct. The increasing prosperity and freedom of the ensuing 20 years proved them right. But as we have surveyed the Murdoch scandal of the past fortnight, few could deny that it has revealed how an international company has bullied and bought its way to control of party leaderships, police forces and regulatory processes. David Cameron, escaping skilfully from the tight corner into which he had got himself, admitted as much. Mr Murdoch himself, like a tired old Godfather, told the House of Commons media committee on Tuesday that he was so often courted by prime ministers that he wished they would leave him alone.

But there was also something very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in parliament. MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them. I cannot accept that this is the case. Indeed, I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.

Most of the people in this very expensive street were every bit as deracinated and cut off from the rest of Britain as the young, unemployed men and women who have caused such terrible damage over the last few days. For them, the repellent Financial Times magazine How to Spend It is a bible. I’d guess that few of them bother to pay British tax if they can avoid it, and that fewer still feel the sense of obligation to society that only a few decades ago came naturally to the wealthy and better off.

Our politicians – standing sanctimoniously on their hind legs in the Commons yesterday – are just as bad. They have shown themselves prepared to ignore common decency and, in some cases, to break the law. David Cameron is happy to have some of the worst offenders in his Cabinet. Take the example of Francis Maude, who is charged with tackling public sector waste – which trade unions say is a euphemism for waging war on low‑paid workers. Yet Mr Maude made tens of thousands of pounds by breaching the spirit, though not the law, surrounding MPs’ allowances.

There was Baghdad in the aftermath of the US invasion – a frenzy of arson and looting that emptied libraries and museums. The factories got hit too. In 2004 I visited one that used to make refrigerators. Its workers had stripped it of everything valuable, then torched it so thoroughly that the warehouse was a sculpture of buckled sheet metal.Back then the people on cable news thought looting was highly political. They said this is what happens when a regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After watching for so long as Saddam Hussein and his sons helped themselves to whatever and whomever they wanted, many regular Iraqis felt they had earned the right to take a few things for themselves. But London isn't Baghdad, and the British prime minister, David Cameron, is hardly Saddam, so surely there is nothing to learn there.

Back then the people on cable news thought looting was highly political. They said this is what happens when a regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After watching for so long as Saddam Hussein and his sons helped themselves to whatever and whomever they wanted, many regular Iraqis felt they had earned the right to take a few things for themselves. But London isn't Baghdad, and the British prime minister, David Cameron, is hardly Saddam, so surely there is nothing to learn there.

Argentina's mass looting was called el saqueo – the sacking. That was politically significant because it was the very same word used to describe what that country's elites had done by selling off the country's national assets in flagrantly corrupt privatisation deals, hiding their money offshore, then passing on the bill to the people with a brutal austerity package.

Banks now have to be able to show they would still have capital worth 5 per cent of their assets even if a series of disasters occurred. Crucially, the banks have also been forced to provide more detail on how much they have lent 30 European countries, amid fears the eurozone crisis could prompt another disaster in the financial sector were a government to default on its debts.