Group items tagged

Enfin, après deux années d’exubérance de la droite conservatrice, dans la vague de Tea Party, c’est la gauche progressiste US qui exulte. Elle est du côté de la révolte, du soulèvement contre un pouvoir jugé oppressif et arbitraire. Tea Party, lui, se trouve exposé dans son côté le plus ambigu, – lequel n’a jamais été dissimulé à nos yeux, tant ce mouvement est insaisissable dans son identification, – notamment par le biais indirect des liens entre le gouverneur Walker, qui se réclame de l’esprit de Tea Party, et les frères milliardaires Koch qui le subventionnent, – tout comme ils subventionnent Tea Party d’ailleurs, au nom de leur hostilité à tout ce qui est service public (et de tout ce qui est, ajouteront les critiques, faveur et puissance pour le corporate power). (Au reste, ces liens ne sont pas plus incestueux et révélateurs que ceux de l’administration Obama et des démocrates avec Wall Street, ce qui n’enlève rien au mouvement de Madison, soutenu par les démocrates et Obama.)

Pour l’instant, à Madison, Wisconsin, tous les ingrédients de la crise sont là, et les grands esprits progressistes, même les plus prudents comme Noam Chomsky, y voient les prémisses de la grande révolte attendue aux USA. Une détermination et une organisation exceptionnelles des foules, avec des actes entravant effectivement le fonctionnement des institutions de l’Etat du Wisconsin ; un soutien affirmé des officiels démocrates de l’Etat, avec des actes à mesure (“exil” dans l’Ohio, pour échapper à l’obligation de présence au vote de la loi Walker, qui permettrait d’atteindre le quorum) ; une détermination affichée comme sans faille du gouverneur Walker pour imposer sa loi ; après un temps d’hésitation, la crise de Madison élevée au rang de grande crise intérieure US, et traitée comme telle par les réseaux de communication, et aussi par les commentateurs et intellectuels comme on l’a vu plus haut avec Chomsky. (Pour l’instant, on s’abstiendra de dire un mot sur Obama, dont le soutien au mouvement est trop calculé pour avoir un impact décisif.)

In Kentucky 978 people died from prescription drug overdose in 2009.   The average age drug addicts in Kentucky start using is 11.

Sarah Shay and Savannah Kissick were school friends in Morehead, both addicted to an array of perfectly legal drugs. Sarah died in 2006, at the age of 19. Savannah followed three years later, aged 22. Both victims of an epidemic of prescription pill abuse sweeping parts of America. When their mothers reel off the names together, they make them sound like weapons. "Xanax. Klonopin. Oxycodone. Hydrocodone." Earlier this year, the White House described the epidemic as the country’s fastest growing drug problem, accounting for more accidental overdoses than the combined total from heroin and crack cocaine in the 1970s and 80s.

The pill crisis, which some are calling pharmageddon, is only now receiving national attention.

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.

Il y avait le syndicat du travail militant qui continuait à organiser, particulièrement le CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) [3]. On en venait au point des grèves sur le tas, qui effrayaient le monde des affaires — vous pouviez le voir dans la Presse d’affaires de l’époque, — parce qu’une grève sur le tas est juste l’étape qui précède la reprise de l’usine pour la faire tourner par vous-même. Par ailleurs, l’idée de prise de contrôle par les travailleurs est tout à fait quelque chose à l’ordre du jour aujourd’hui, et nous devrions le garder à l’esprit. En outre, la législation du New Deal commença à intervenir en tant que résultat de la pression populaire. Malgré les moments difficiles, il y avait un sentiment qu’en quelque sorte : « nous allons en sortir ».

Avec cela est venu un changement important de l’économie de l’entreprise productive — qui produit les choses dont les gens ont besoin ou qu’ils pourraient utiliser — à la manipulation financière. La financiérisation de l’économie a vraiment décollé à ce moment-là.

Avant les années 1970 les banques étaient des banques. Elles faisaient ce que des banques étaient supposées faire dans une économie capitaliste d’État : par exemple, elles prenaient les fonds inutilisés de votre compte bancaire pour les transférer à des objets potentiellement utiles, comme aider une famille à acheter une maison ou envoyer un enfant au collège. Cela changea dramatiquement dans les années 1970. Jusque-là, depuis la Grande Dépression, il n’y avait eu aucune crise financière. Les années 1950 et les années 1960 avaient été une période d’énorme croissance, les plus hautes dans l’histoire américaine, et peut-être dans l’histoire économique. Et c’était égalitaire. Le un cinquième du plus bas faisait aussi bien que le un cinquième du plus haut. Des tas des gens évoluaient dans des styles de vie raisonnables — appelés ici « la classe moyenne » et dans d’autres pays « la classe ouvrière », — et c’était une réalité ; et les années 1960 l’accélérèrent. L’activisme de ces années, après une décennie assez morne, civilisa vraiment le pays dans toutes sortes de voies inaliénables.

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.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.