Arquivo anual: 2012

Computers Can Predict Effects of HIV Policies, Study Suggests (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (July 27, 2012) — Policymakers in the fight against HIV/AIDS may have to wait years, even decades, to know whether strategic choices among possible interventions are effective. How can they make informed choices in an age of limited funding? A reliable, well-calibrated, predictive computer simulation would be a great help.

A visualization generated by an agent-based model of New York City’s HIV epidemic shows the risky interactions of unprotected sex or needle sharing among injection drug users (red), non-injection drug users (blue) and non-users (green). (Credit: Brandon Marshall/Brown University)

Policymakers struggling to stop the spread of HIV grapple with “what if” questions on the scale of millions of people and decades of time. They need a way to predict the impact of many potential interventions, alone or in combination. In two papers to be presented at the 2012 International AIDS Society Conference in Washington, D.C., Brandon Marshall, assistant professor of epidemiology at Brown University, will unveil a computer program calibrated to model accurately the spread of HIV in New York City over a decade and to make specific predictions about the future of the epidemic under various intervention scenarios.

“It reflects what’s seen in the real world,” said Marshall. “What we’re trying to do is identify the ideal combination of interventions to reduce HIV most dramatically in injection drug users.”

In an analysis that he’ll present on July 27, Marshall projects that with no change in New York City’s current programs, the infection rate among injection drug users will be 2.1 per 1,000 in 2040. Expanding HIV testing would drop the rate only 12 percent to 1.9 per 1,000; increasing drug treatment would reduce the rate 26 percent to 1.6 per 1,000; providing earlier delivery of antiretroviral therapy and better adherence would drop the rate 45 percent to 1.2 per 1,000; and expanding needle exchange programs would reduce the rate 34 percent to 1.4 per 1,000. Most importantly, doing all four of those things would cut the rate by more than 60 percent, to 0.8 per 1,000.

Virtual reality, real choices

The model is unique in that it creates a virtual reality of 150,000 “agents,” a programming term for simulated individuals, who in the case of the model, engage in drug use and sexual activity like real people.

Like characters in an all-too-serious video game, the agents behave in a world governed by biological rules, such as how often the virus can be transmitted through encounters such as unprotected gay sex or needle sharing.

With each run of the model, agents accumulate a detailed life history. For example, in one run, agent 89,425, who is male and has sex with men, could end up injecting drugs. He participates in needle exchanges, but according to the built-in probabilities, in year three he shares needles multiple times with another injection drug user with whom he is also having unprotected sex. In the last of those encounters, agent 89,425 becomes infected with HIV. In year four he starts participating in drug treatment and in year five he gets tested for HIV, starts antiretroviral treatment, and reduces the frequency with which he has unprotected sex. Because he always takes his HIV medications, he never transmits the virus further.

That level of individual detail allows for a detailed examination of transmission networks and how interventions affect them.

“With this model you can really look at the microconnections between people,” said Marshall, who began working on the model as a postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University and has continued to develop it since coming to Brown in January. “That’s something that we’re really excited about.”

To calibrate the model, Marshall and his colleagues found the best New York City data they could about how many people use drugs, what percentage of people were gay or lesbian, the probabilities of engaging in unprotected sex and needle sharing, viral transmission, access to treatment, treatment effectiveness, participation in drug treatment, progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and many more behavioral, social and medical factors. They also continuously calibrated it until the model could faithfully reproduce the infection rates among injection drug users that were known to occur in New York between 1992 and 2002.

And they don’t just run the simulation once. They run it thousands of times on a supercomputer at Brown to be sure the results they see are reliable.

Future applications

At Brown, Marshall is continuing to work on other aspects of the model, including an analysis of the cost effectiveness of each intervention and their combinations. Cost is, after all, another fact of life that policymakers and public health officials must weigh.

And then there’s the frustrating insight that the infection rate, even with four strengthened interventions underway, didn’t reduce the projected epidemic by much more than half.

“I actually expected something larger,” Marshall said. “That speaks to how hard we have to work to make sure that drug users can access and benefit from proven interventions to reduce the spread of HIV.”

Marshall’s collaborators on the model include Magdalena Paczkowski, Lars Seemann, Barbara Tempalski, Enrique Pouget, Sandro Galea, and Samuel Friedman.

The National Institutes of Health and the Lifespan/Tufts/Brown Center for AIDS Research provide financial support for the model’s continued development.

Climate Change Could Open Trade Opportunities for Some Vulnerable Nations (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (July 26, 2012) — Tanzania is one developing country that could actually benefit from climate change by increasing exports of corn to the U.S. and other nations, according to a study by researchers at Stanford University, the World Bank and Purdue University.

The study, published in the Review of Development Economics, shows the African country better known for safaris and Mt. Kilimanjaro has the potential to substantially increase its maize exports and take advantage of higher commodity prices with a variety of trading partners due to predicted dry and hot weather that could affect those countries’ usual sources for the crop. In years that major consumer countries such as the U.S., China and India are forecast to experience severe dry conditions, Tanzania’s weather will likely be comparatively wet. Similarly, in the relatively few years this century that it is expected to have severe dry weather, Tanzania could import corn from trading partners experiencing better growing conditions.

“This study highlights how government policies can influence the impact that we experience from the climate system” said study co-author Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford’s School of Earth Sciences and a center fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “Tanzania is a particularly interesting case, as it has the potential to benefit from climate change if climate model predictions of decreasing drought in East Africa prove to be correct, and if trade policies are constructed to take advantage of those new opportunities.”

Tightening restrictions on crop exports during times of climate instability may seem like a logical way to ensure domestic food availability and price stability. In fact, the study warns, trade restrictions such as those that Tanzania has instituted several times in recent years prevent countries such as Tanzania from buffering its poor citizens in bad climate years and from taking advantage of economic opportunities in good climate years.

The study, the most long-range and detailed of its kind to date uses economic, climatic and agricultural data and computational models to forecast the occurrence of severe dry years during the next nine decades in Tanzania and its key trading partners. The authors began by analyzing historical years in which Tanzania experienced grains surpluses or deficits. They found that a closed trade policy enhanced poverty in both kinds of years, by limiting the ability to offset shortfalls with imports during deficit years and limiting the ability to profit from exports during surplus years.

The authors then attempted to predict how often Tanzania and key trading partners will experience severely dry years in response to continued global warming. Among the predictions: during an average of 96 percent of the years that the U.S. and China are predicted to have extremely dry conditions, Tanzania will not experience similarly dry weather. For India, that percentage increases to 97 percent. Similarly, the study’s climate models suggest that Tanzania is likely to have adequate growing season moisture in most of the years that its key African trading partners experience severe dry weather.

Among Tanzania’s trading partners, the U.S., China, Canada and Russia are most likely to consistently experience adequate growing conditions in years when Tanzania does not. When compared with all of its key trading partners, Tanzania’s dry years during the 21st century will often coincide with non-dry years in the other countries. Having a diverse mix of trading partners could help hedge against a coincidence of severe dry weather within and outside of Africa, the study’s results suggest.

The findings are relevant to grain-growing countries around the world. Those countries stand to profit from exports in years when trading partners are enduring severe dry and / or hot weather. Likewise, they can buffer themselves against bad growing weather at home by importing from grains-rich regions less affected by such weather during that particular year.

“This study highlights the importance of trade in either buffering or exacerbating the effects of climate stresses on the poor,” says Diffenbaugh. “We find that these effects are already taking place in the current climate, and that they could become even more important in the future as the co-occurrence of good and bad years between different regions changes in response to global warming.”

Ciência e cultura, o que elas têm em comum? (Jornal da Ciência)

JC e-mail 4549, de 27 de Julho de 2012.

A pergunta foi tema da mesa-redonda “Divulgação da Ciência e da Cultura”, realizada na 64ª Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência (SBPC), que termina hoje (27), em São Luís.

Para Ildeu de Castro Moreira, diretor de Popularização e Difusão da Ciência e Tecnologia do Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) e conselheiro da SBPC, o debate sobre a relação da ciência com a arte é muito importante porque são duas facetas fundamentais da cultura humana. “Ciência, arte e cultura têm em comum a criatividade inerente ao ser humano”, definiu. Ele explica que arte e ciência são atividades humanas e sociais baseadas na criatividade e curiosidade.

Físico e divulgador científico, Ildeu falou sobre o “imaginário científico presente na mente de artistas”, e explicou que a ciência também tem preocupação estética e guarda semelhanças com a arte. Para ele, há beleza nas teorias científicas. “Equações matemáticas e fórmulas físicas são lindas. Podem parecer chatas em sala de aula, mas contando com a ajuda do olhar de um artista é possível mostrar essa beleza. É preciso aprender a olhar a beleza da ciência, assim como temos que aprender a olhar muita coisa na arte contemporânea”, exemplifica.

Para Ildeu, as conexões entre ciência e arte são importantes para fazer a divulgação científica chegar mais facilmente ao público. Em sua exposição, ele mostrou manifestações artísticas que falam de ciência, dando exemplos de poesias, músicas, enredos de escolas de samba, ditos populares e cordel.

Público infantil – Em sua apresentação na mesa-redonda, Luisa Medeiros Massarani, jornalista e chefe do Museu da Vida da Fiocruz, no Rio de Janeiro, falou sobre iniciativas de divulgação científicas voltadas para o público infantil. “A experiência tem demonstrado uma grande receptividade das crianças, maior do que a de adultos e adolescentes. Principalmente devido à curiosidade da criança, que são consideradas como ‘cientistas naturais'”, explica.

Luisa falou sobre o crescimento de museus de ciências no País, que atualmente são cerca de 200, embora ainda estejam concentrados em algumas regiões. “Os museus têm apelo incrível para as crianças e são importantes também para o divulgador que vê na hora a reação da criança”, revela. Apesar de os museus terem grande parte do público formado por crianças, Luisa afirma que é preciso pensar em espaços específicos para elas, desde a redução do tamanho dos móveis até atividades interativas adequadas.

Ela defende que a criança deve ser encarada como ator social importante no processo de divulgação científica. “Falar de divulgação científica para criança não é falar de ciência unilateralmente, é preciso que a criança seja ator importante e protagonista do processo”, explica ao dizer que a experiência de uma feira de ciência, ou a visita a um museu fica na memória da criança e pode influenciar sua formação, além de provocar e despertar o interesse pela ciência.

A chefe do Museu da Vida citou exposições, livros e publicações voltadas para o público infantil. E destacou a importância de fazer avaliações junto às crianças depois dessas experiências, para saber qual caminho seguir.

Ildeu aproveitou para sugerir que artistas participem mais ativamente das reuniões da SBPC, não somente como um evento paralelo, como a SBPC Cultural, mas como integrantes de mesas e debates com os cientistas. A ideia é aproveitar o público da Reunião, que alcança 15, 20 mil pessoas para falar dessa relação.

(Jornal da Ciência)

Uma leitura de antropólogos e sociólogos sobre o futuro da Amazônia (Jornal da Ciência)

JC e-mail 4549, de 27 de Julho de 2012.

O enfraquecimento de agências multilaterais de cooperação internacional começa a ameaçar as políticas para conservação da Amazônia Legal. A afirmativa é do presidente do Programa Nova Cartografia Social, Alfredo Wagner de Almeida, que ministrou conferência ontem (26) na 64ª Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência (SBPC), realizada na Universidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), em São Luís.

Sob o tema “Povos e comunidades tradicionais atingidos por projetos militares”, o antropólogo alertou sobre a ação de sete estados que buscam reduzir a Amazônia Legal, cujos projetos tramitam no Legislativo. Dentre os quais estão o Mato Grosso que prevê retirar a participação de sua área como Amazônia Legal, igualmente a Rondônia, que quer retirar esse título de suas terras da região. Outros estados como Maranhão e Tocantins querem tirar o título de todas suas áreas consideradas Amazônia Legal.

A região engloba uma superfície de aproximadamente 5.217.423 km², o equivalente a cerca de 61% do território brasileiro. Foi instituída com objetivo de definir a delimitação geográfica da região política captadora de incentivos fiscais para promoção do desenvolvimento regional.

“Essa é uma primeira tentativa de reduzir a Amazônia Legal, pois esses estados agora não gozam mais dos benefícios concedidos pelas agências internacionais multilaterais”, analisou Almeida, também conselheiro da SBPC e professor da Universidade do Estado do Amazonas (UEA).

Segundo o pesquisador, os organismos internacionais, até então, eram fontes de recursos para programas de proteção à Amazônia. Tais como, o Projeto Integrado de Proteção às Populações e Terras Indígenas da Amazônia Legal (PPTAL), destinado à demarcação de terras indígenas, fomentado principalmente pelo governo da Alemanha. E o PPG7 (Programa Piloto para Proteção das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil). Foram essas políticas que fortaleceram a criação do Ministério do Meio Ambiente. “Sem o apoio das agências multilaterais as políticas para a Amazônia encolheram”, disse, sem citar valores.

Conforme o antropólogo, a decisão dos estados que querem sair da Amazônia Legal significa para eles “liderar mais terras segundo as quais consideram ser produtivas”, em detrimento da conservação das florestas.

As declarações do antropólogo são baseadas no dossiê “Amazônia: sociedade, fronteiras e políticas”, produzido por Edna Maria Ramos de Castro, socióloga do Núcleo de Altos Estudos Amazônicos, da Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA), e diretora da SBPC, que intermediou a conferência. A íntegra do documento foi publicada recentemente no Caderno CRH da Bahia.

Terras indígenas – Na avaliação da autora do dossiê, os dispositivos jurídicos desses estados ameaçam as terras indígenas – protagonistas na conservação da biodiversidade que precisam da natureza para sobreviver. “São dispositivos legais, são claros na Constituição, mas essa prática pode levar a uma situação de impasse [da sociedade]”, analisou. Edna citou o caso da polêmica obra da hidrelétrica de Belo Monte que se tornou um ícone de um processo de resistência da sociedade brasileira.

Mudança de paradigma – O antropólogo fez uma leitura sobre o atual modelo político brasileiro administrativo. Ele vê uma mudança de uma política “de proteção” para uma “ideia de protecionismo”. “A distinção entre proteção e protecionismo revela em primeiro lugar o enfraquecimento das agências multilaterais internacionais”, disse. Segundo ele, o protecionismo “erige” fora do âmbito da proteção.

Do ponto de vista de Alfredo Wagner, os sinais de mudança refletem principalmente os desacordos na reunião da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC) em dezembro de 2011 em Genebra. Na ocasião, houve sinais de ruptura de acordos internacionais – até então chamados de mercado comum. Um exemplo “é o engavetamento” da chamada Rodada de Doha, em razão de divergência entre as partes sobre subsídios agrícolas concedidos por países desenvolvidos.

Expansão da área militar e infraestrutura – O antropólogo lembra que no auge dos organismos multilaterais a área de segurança, isto é, a dos militares, não era fomentada porque não fazia parte de uma política de mercado único. Ele observa, entretanto, uma mudança a partir de 2009 quando há um deslocamento do modelo e problemas com os militares começam a aparecer, em decorrência da reedição de projetos de fronteiras militarizadas. “A partir daí inicia um capítulo de conflitos”.

Afastamento de fundos internacionais e órgãos reguladores – Segundo ele, o que mais sobressai na “ideia do protecionismo” é a identificação de recursos naturais estratégicos, como commodities agrícolas e minérios, que – sob o argumento de desenvolvimento sustentável – podem ser utilizados para o incremento de grandes obras de infraestrutura.

“Tudo passa a ser interpretado como interesses nacionais. A ideia de bloco vai perdendo força, o que pode explicar as próprias tensões no Mercosul, quando a Venezuela é levada ao bloco em momentos de crise. Esses interesses nacionais passam a se articular de maneira disciplinada sem passar pelas entidades multilaterais”, considera o antropólogo.

Segundo ele, atual ação do Estado brasileiro não passa pelas entidades multilaterais. Reflexo é o afastamento do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) e de duas normas estrangeiras. Uma delas é a Lei de Direitos Humanos Internacional da OEA (Organização dos Estados Americanos). Ele lembra que o Brasil deixou de investir “nessa corte” a partir do momento em que a hidrelétrica de Belo Monte foi condenada pelo órgão. “O Brasil passa a ter uma posição unilateral, semelhante a dos norte-americanos na Guerra do Golfo”, observa o antropólogo. “A ideia do protecionismo vem de forma bastante forte”.

Alfredo Wagner também observa sinais de afastamento da Convenção 169 em que obriga a consulta prévia de comunidades prejudicadas por grandes obras de infraestrutura, por exemplo. Segundo ele, o Brasil é condenado a seis violações em projetos militares. Uma é pela construção do Centro de Lançamentos de Alcântara (CLA) em comunidades quilombolas no Maranhão, sem licenciamento ambiental e sem consulta às comunidades “afetadas”.

Ele alerta também sobre quatro medidas preocupantes em andamento segundo as quais preveem a construção emergencial de hidrelétricas. Um exemplo é a Medida Provisória 558 de 18 de janeiro de 2012 em que prevê redução de unidades protegidas e de conservação de florestas sob o argumento de desenvolvimento. Segundo ele, o Ibama aprovou em apenas cinco dias uma minuta de termo de referência da Eletronorte para construção de uma hidrelétrica em São Luiz de Tapajós. Na prática, foi aprovado o plano de trabalho encaminhado para diagnosticar as obras. “Com o ritmo emergencial para essas obras parece que os direitos são colocados em suspenso”.

Recursos de inconstitucionalidade – Tal MP foi questionada pela Procuradoria Geral da República por uma ADIN (Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade). O Ministério Público Federal considerou que as unidades de conservação nas áreas de hidrelétricas são essenciais para minimizar os impactos ambientais dos projetos; e argumentou que qualquer discussão sobre a redução dessas áreas florestais deve ser realizada no Congresso Nacional, a fim de evitar a edição de uma MP. “O Brasil hoje vive o império das Medidas Provisórias que impedem a ampla discussão da sociedade. Isso dá uma ideia de capitalismo autoritário”, disse o antropólogo.

Privatização de terras na Amazônia – Ele também alerta sobre a privatização das terras públicas na Amazônia sob o “eufemismo” de regularização fundiária, via o programa Terra Legal, pela Lei 11.952 de julho de 2009. Encaminhada pela Presidência da República, a medida prevê privatizar 70 milhões de hectares de terras públicas, um volume considerável em relação ao total de 850 milhões de hectares de terras que compõem o Brasil, segundo o antropólogo. Alfredo Wagner alerta sobre a agilidade na titularidade das terras para grandes propriedades que a MP permite, em detrimento dos pequenos proprietários.

Inicialmente, a medida foi questionada pelo Ministério Público por uma ADIN pela justificativa de que ela estabelece “privilégios injustificáveis” em favor de grileiros que no passado se beneficiaram de terras públicas e houve concentração de terras. “Essa MP é tão cruel quanto a Lei de Terras Sarney de 1969”, disse o antropólogo.

Judicialização do Estado – Buscando tranquilizar os ânimos da plateia lotada por alunos, pesquisadores, cientistas, dentre outros – estimada em cerca de 140 pessoas – que temia ser a volta da ditadura militar, o antropólogo respondeu sobre o atual modelo: “Ele não é igual à ditadura militar”, respondeu o atribuindo a um “judicialização do Estado” e de “uma coisa esquisita”.

Na ocasião, o antropólogo usou a frase de sociólogos para explicar uma crise: “O velho ainda não morreu e o novo ainda não nasceu. Mas está havendo uma transformação.”

(Viviane Monteiro – Jornal da Ciência)

Listening to Tinnitus: Roles of Media When Hearing Breaks Down (Sounding Out!)

http://soundstudiesblog.com – 16 July 2012

3127974826_d8e62bde6f_b

Editor’s Note: Welcome to the third installment in our month-long exploration of listening in observation of World Listening Day on July 18, 2012.  For the full introduction to the series click here.  To peep the previous posts, click here. Otherwise, prepare yourself to listen carefully as Mack Hagood contemplates how sound studies scholars can help tinnitus sufferers (and vice versa).  –JSA

—-

 One January morning in 2006, Joel Styzens woke up and life sounded different. Superimposed over the quiet ambience of his Chicago apartment was a cluster of sounds: pure, high-pitched tones like those of a hearing test. Loud, steady, and constant, they weren’t going away.  He walked to the bathroom to wash his face. “As soon as I turned on the water on the faucet,” he told me in an interview, “the left ear was crackling… like, a speaker, you know, being overdriven.” Joel was 24 and a professional musician, someone who made his living through focused and detailed listening.

As days passed, he grew more fearful and depressed. For two months, he barely left the house. The air brakes of a city bus or a honking horn were painful and caused his heart to race. His sense of himself, his environment, and his identity as a musician were all undermined. This man who lived through his ears now faced the prospect of a life of tinnitus (ringing or other “phantom sounds”) and its frequent companion, hyperacusis (sound sensitivity sometimes accompanied by distortion). Joel could even identify the dominant pitch of his torment: it was A sharp.

We humanistic and qualitative sound scholars—particularly those of us focused on media and technology—can learn a lot from listening to tinnitus and the people who have it. Scholars of science and technology studies (STS) often utilize moments of technological breakdown to reveal the processes and mechanisms that constitute things we take for granted. Tinnitus and hyperacusis are, in the words of anthropologist Stefan Helmreich, “moments when hearing and listening break down” (629). Because sound scholars understand sound, hearing, and listening not only as the material effects of physics and physiology, but also as culturally and technologically emergent phenomena, we can potentially contribute much to the growing public conversation around tinnitus.

“Tinnitus” by Merrick Brown

And there is a lot at stake. Tinnitus affects 10-15% of adults and is the top service-related disability affecting U.S. veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Tinnitus and hyperacusis are also fairly common among musicians who work in loud performance and media production environments. It is perhaps ironic, then, that mediated sound and music are audiologists’ primary tools in helping people recover from these conditions.

My own study of tinnitus centers on its articulation with audio-spatial media—devices such as bedside sound machines, white noise generators, and noise-canceling headphones, all used to fabricate a desired sense of space through sound. People with tinnitus are among the most avid users of these devices, carefully mediating their aural-spatial relations as tinnitus becomes more evident in quiet spaces and hyperacusis flares up in noisy ones. During my fieldwork in audiology clinics and conferences, tinnitus support groups, andonline forums, I observed that audio media were being deployed as medicine and technologies of self-care. Gradually, I came to the realization that the experience, discourse, and treatment of tinnitus is always bound up in mediation. In fact, I believe that tinnitus signals the highly mediated nature of our most intimate perceptions of sound and self. Below, I sketch just a few of the places I think aural media scholarship could go in conversation with tinnitus and hyperacusis.

The sound of media aftermath

Hearing experts do not consider subjective tinnitus to be a disease, but rather a condition in which individuals experience the normal, random neuronal firing of their auditory system as sound. Although it may be tied to various diseases and disorders, tinnitus itself is benign and does not inherently signal progressive hearing loss nor any other malignant condition.

Image by Flickr User Phil Edmonds

Nevertheless, research shows a frequent association between tinnitus and reduced auditory input, comparable to a sound engineer turning up the volume on a weak signal and thus amplifying the mixing board’s inherent noise. This “automatic gain control” theory neatly explains a classic 1953 study, in which 94 percent of “normal hearing” people experienced tinnitus in the dead silence of an anechoic chamber. Unfortunately, it also helps confirm the fear that the ringing heard after a night of loud music is due to hearing loss, known clinically as “temporary threshold shift.”

As Joel’s case suggests, when repeated, such threshold shifts lead to permanent damage. Audiologists increasingly see media-induced hearing loss and tinnitus as an epidemic, with ubiquitous earbuds often positioned as the main culprits. I have heard clinicians express dismay at encountering more young people with “old ears” in their offices, and youth education programs are beginning to proliferate. These apparent relations between aural pleasure and self-harm are an intriguing and socially significant area for sound and media scholarship, but they should also be considered within the context of moral panics that have historically accompanied the emergence of new media.

Objectifying phantom sound

For both clinicians and sufferers, one of the most frustrating and confounding aspects of tinnitus is how hard it is to objectify, either as a subject of research and treatment or as a condition worthy of empathy and activism. For both clinicians and sufferers, media are the primary tools for converting tinnitus into a manageable object.

Media marketed to protect musicians against Tinnitus, Image by Flickr User Jochen Wolters

Although media scholars haven’t yet studied it as such, the audiologist’s clinic is a center of media production and consumer electronics retail. Having audio production experience, I felt a sense of recognition on seeing the mixer-like audiometer in the control room of Joel’s audiologist, Jill Meltzer, separated by a pane of glass from the soundproofed booth where her patients sit. It was a studio where Meltzer recorded hearing rather than sound, as she attempted the tricky work of matching the pitch, volume, and sensitivity levels of tinnitus and hyperacusis. Since medication and surgery are not effective treatment options, the remedies for sale are media prosthetics and palliatives such as wearable sound generators“fractal tone” hearing aidsNeuromonics, and soundmachines that help distract, calm, and habituate patients to the ringing. Meltzer and other clinicians consistently told me that they have only two tinnitus tools at their disposal—counseling and sound.

Audiometer and testing booth, Image by the author

The subjectivity of tinnitus is most frustrating for sufferers, however, who often encounter impatience and misunderstanding from family, friends, bosses, and even their doctors. Again, media serve to externalize and objectify the sound. Joel did this through music: “A Sharp,” Styzens’ first post-tinnitus composition, represents tinnitus with chordal dissonance and hyperacusis with a powerful change of dynamics on a guitar. He eventually recorded an entire album that explored his condition and raised awareness.

.

Other individuals, in an attempt to communicate the aural experience that drives their sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, or lack of concentration, create YouTube videos designed to recreate the subjective experience of tinnitus.

.

The American Tinnitus Association, an advocacy group, has used broadcast and social media to raise awareness and research funding, as we see in this PSA from 1985.

.

However, such dramatic uses of media may be in some ways too powerful. In fact, “raising awareness of tinnitus” might be as bad as it literally sounds.

Communicable dis-ease

In the process of externalizing their experience for others to hear, people with tinnitus can make their own perception of the sound grow stronger. They may also generate anxiety in others, encouraging them to notice and problematize their own, previously benign tinnitus.

Neuroscientist Pawel Jastreboff’s groundbreaking and influentialneurophysiological model of tinnitus postulates that tinnitus becomes bothersome only when the auditory cortex forms networks with other areas in the brain, resulting in a vicious circle of increasing perception and fear. The implication of this model, now substantiated by clinical research, is that the way people think about tinnitus is a much greater predictor of suffering than the perceived volume of the sound. As Jastreboff told me in an interview, “Incorrect information can induce bothersome tinnitus.” Information, of course, circulates through media. It may be productive, then, to think of tinnitus suffering as a communicable dis-ease, one strengthened in circulation through networks of neurons, discourse, and media.

I think there is both a need and an opportunity in tinnitus for an applied sound studies, one that intervenes in this mediated public discourse, works against moral panic and hyperawareness, and suggests the quieting possibilities that open up when we grasp the constructed nature of our aurality. Listening to tinnitus as a networked coproduction highlights the ways in which our most subjective aural perceptions are also social, cultural, and mediated—perhaps the fundamental insight of sound studies. My hope is that by listening to tinnitus we can speak to it as well.

__

*Featured Image Credit: A representation of Tinnitus by Flickr User Jason Rogers, called “Day 642/365–Myself is against me”

 __
Mack Hagood is a doctoral candidate at Indiana University’s Department of Communication and Culture, where he does ethnographic research in digital media, sound studies, and popular music. He has taught courses on sound cultures, global media, ethnographic methods, and audio production. He and his students won the Indiana Society of Professional Journalists’ 2012 Best Radio Use of Sound award for their documentary series “I-69: Sounds and Stories in the Path of a Superhighway.” His publications include studies of indie rock in Taiwan (Folklore Forumand the use of noise-canceling headphones in air travel (American Quarterly)He recently completed an article on combat Foley in Fight Club and is now finishing his dissertation, titled “Sonic Technologies of the Self: Mediating Sound, Space, Self, and Sociality.” He hears crickets even in the dead of winter.

Stop bullying the ‘soft’ sciences (L.A.Times)

OP-ED

The social sciences are just that — sciences.

By Timothy D. Wilson

July 12, 2012

Sociology studentA student is seen at the UC Irvine archive doing research for her sociology dissertation. (Los Angeles Times / July 9, 2009)

Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department ofPsychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.

There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the “hard” ones (physics, chemistry, biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the “soft” ones ( psychology, sociology). It is thus no surprise that many members of the general public feel the same way. But of late, skepticism about the rigors of social science has reached absurd heights.

The U.S. House of Representativesrecently voted to eliminate funding for political science research through the National Science Foundation. In the wake of that action, an opinion writer for the Washington Post suggested that the House didn’t go far enough. The NSF should not fund any research in the social sciences, wrote Charles Lane, because “unlike hypotheses in the hard sciences, hypotheses about society usually can’t be proven or disproven by experimentation.”

Lane’s comments echoed ones by Gary Gutting in the Opinionator blog of the New York Times. “While the physical sciences produce many detailed and precise predictions,” wrote Gutting, “the social sciences do not. The reason is that such predictions almost always require randomized controlled experiments, which are seldom possible when people are involved.”

This is news to me and the many other social scientists who have spent their careers doing carefully controlled experiments on human behavior, inside and outside the laboratory. What makes the criticism so galling is that those who voice it, or members of their families, have undoubtedly benefited from research in the disciplines they dismiss.

Most of us know someone who has suffered from depression and sought psychotherapy. He or she probably benefited from therapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy that have been shown to work in randomized clinical trials.

Problems such as child abuse and teenage pregnancy take a huge toll on society. Interventions developed by research psychologists, tested with the experimental method, have been found to lower the incidence of child abuse and reduce the rate of teenage pregnancies.

Ever hear of stereotype threat? It is the double jeopardy that people face when they are at risk of confirming a negative stereotype of their group. When African American students take a difficult test, for example, they are concerned not only about how well they will do but also about the possibility that performing poorly will reflect badly on their entire group. This added worry has been shown time and again, in carefully controlled experiments, to lower academic performance. But fortunately, experiments have also showed promising ways to reduce this threat. One intervention, for example, conducted in a middle school, reduced the achievement gap by 40%.

If you know someone who was unlucky enough to be arrested for a crime he didn’t commit, he may have benefited from social psychological experiments that have resulted in fairer lineups and interrogations, making it less likely that innocent people are convicted.

An often-overlooked advantage of the experimental method is that it can demonstrate what doesn’t work. Consider three popular programs that research psychologists have debunked: Critical Incident Stress Debriefing, used to prevent post-traumatic stress disorders in first responders and others who have witnessed horrific events; the D.A.R.E. anti-drug program, used in many schools throughout America; and Scared Straight programs designed to prevent at-risk teens from engaging in criminal behavior.

All three of these programs have been shown, with well-designed experimental studies, to be ineffective or, in some cases, to make matters worse. And as a result, the programs have become less popular or have changed their methods. By discovering what doesn’t work, social scientists have saved the public billions of dollars.

To be fair to the critics, social scientists have not always taken advantage of the experimental method as much as they could. Too often, for example, educational programs have been implemented widely without being adequately tested. But increasingly, educational researchers are employing better methodologies. For example, in a recent study, researchers randomly assigned teachers to a program called My Teaching Partner, which is designed to improve teaching skills, or to a control group. Students taught by the teachers who participated in the program did significantly better on achievement tests than did students taught by teachers in the control group.

Are the social sciences perfect? Of course not. Human behavior is complex, and it is not possible to conduct experiments to test all aspects of what people do or why. There are entire disciplines devoted to the experimental study of human behavior, however, in tightly controlled, ethically acceptable ways. Many people benefit from the results, including those who, in their ignorance, believe that science is limited to the study of molecules.

Timothy D. Wilson is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and the author of “Redirect: The Surprising New Science of Psychological Change.”

Scientific particles collide with social media to benefit of all (Irish Times)

The Irish Times – Thursday, July 12, 2012

xxx Large Hadron Collider at Cern: the research body now has 590,000 followers on Twitter

xxx Large Hadron Collider at Cern: the research body now has 590,000 followers on Twitter

MARIE BORAN

IN 2008 CERN switched on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva – around the same time it sent out its first tweet. Although the first outing of the LHC didn’t go according to plan, the Twitter account gained 10,000 followers within the first day, according to James Gillies, head of communications at Cern.

Speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Dublin this week, Gillies explained the role social media plays in engaging the public with the particle physics research its laboratory does. The Twitter account now has 590,000 followers and Cern broke important news via it in March 2010 by joyously declaring: “Experiment have seen collisions.”

“Why do we communicate at Cern? If you talk to the scientists who work there they will tell you it’s a good thing to do and they all want to do it,” Gillies said, adding that Cern is publicly funded so engaging with the people who pay the bills is important.

When the existence of the Higgs particle was announced last week, it wasn’t an exclusive press event. Live video was streamed across the web, questions were taken not only from journalists but also from Twitter followers, and Cern used this as a chance to announce jobs via Facebook.

While Cern appears to be the social media darling of the science world, other research institutes and scientists are still weighing up the pros and cons of platforms like Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.

There is a certain stigma attached to social networking sites, not just because much of the content is perceived as banal, but also because too much tweeting could be damaging to your image as a scientist.

Bora Zivkovic is blogs editor at Scientific American, organiser of the fast-growing science conference ScienceOnline and speaker at the social media panel this Saturday at the Euroscience Open Forum. He says the adoption of social media by scientists is slow but growing.

“Academics are quite risk-averse and are shy about trying new things that have a perceived potential to remove the edge they may have in the academic hierarchy, either through lost time or lost reputation.”

Zivkovic talks about fear of the “Sagan effect”, named after the late Carl Sagan. A talented astronomer and astrophysicist, he was loved by the public but snubbed by the science community.

“Many still see social media as self-promotion, which is still in some scientific circles viewed as a negative thing to do. The situation is reminiscent of the very slow adoption of email by researchers back in the early 1990s.

“Once the scientists figure out how to include social media in their daily workflow, realise it does not take away from their time but actually makes them more effective in reaching their academic goals, and realise that the ‘Sagan effect’ on reputation is a thing of the past, they will readily incorporate social media into their normal work.”

Many researchers still rely heavily on specialist mailing lists. The broadcast capability on social media is far greater and bespoke, claims Dr Matthew Rowe, research associate at the Knowledge Media Institute with the Open University.

“If I was to email people about some recent work I would presume that it would be marked as spam. However, if I was to announce the release of some work through social media, then a debate and conversation could evolve surrounding the topic; I have seen this happen many times on Facebook.”

Conversations on social media sites are often seen as trivial – for scientists, the end goal is “publish or perish”. Results must be published in a reputable academic journal and preferably cited by those in their area.

Twitter, it seems, can help. A 2011 paper from researcher Gunther Eysenbach found a correlation between Twitter activity and highly cited articles. The microblogging site may help citation rate or serve as a measure of how “citable” your paper may be.

In addition, a 2010 survey on Twitter found one-third of academics said they use it for sharing information with peers, communicating with students or as a real-time news source.

For some the argument for social media is the potential for connecting with volunteers and providing valuable data from the citizen scientist. Yolanda Melero Cavero’s MinkApp has connected locals with an effort to control the mink population in Scotland.

“The most interesting thing about MinkApp, for me, was the fact that the scientist was able to get 600 volunteers for her ecological study. Social media has the grassroots potential to engage with willing volunteers,” says Nancy Salmon, researcher at the department of occupational therapy at the University of Limerick.

Rowe gives some sage social media advice for academics about keeping on topic and your language jargon-free.

But there’s always room for humour as demonstrated by the Higgs boson jokes on Twitter and Facebook last week. As astronomer Phil Platt tweeted: “I’ve got 99.9999% problems, but a Higgs ain’t one.”

Bryan Fischer Blames ‘Liberals’ Way’ For Aurora Mass Shooting (The Huffington Post)

The Huffington Post  |  By Meredith Bennett-Smith Posted: 07/24/2012 2:51 pm Updated: 07/24/2012 9:12 pm

Video

Pundits across the political spectrum have been quick to use the weekend’s tragic mass shooting at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater as a means of pushing various threads of partisan rhetoric.

Bryan Fischer, the oft-quoted mouthpiece of the American Family Association, was quick to jump on the bandwagon, tying the mass shooting first to a general breakdown in Judeo-Christian values, and most recently to the public school system’s teaching of evolution.

The Raw Story published comments made Monday by Fischer, the director of issues analysis for the fundamentalist Christian organization, during his daily radio show, “Focal Point.” In an impressive feat of extrapolation, Fischer linked the massacre to “the liberals’ way” of teaching the theory of evolution and preventing prayer in schools.

Fischer wondered aloud if bestselling author and California magachurch evangelical Reverend Rick Warren was referring to the alleged shooter, James Holmes, when hetweeted, “When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it.”

“If this tweet was connected to the shooting, to this James Holmes, to the one that killed the 12 and wounded the 58 in this theater, it would be appropriate,” Fischer said.

Fischer went on to blame Holmes’ murderous tendencies on Charles’ Darwin’s principle of survival of the fittest.

“[Holmes] sees himself as evolutionarily advanced just like he was taught in school about Darwin, that this is how natural selection works,” Fischer said.

Fischer then moved on to also blame the killings on the end of organized prayer in schools. The Supreme Court prohibited state-sponsored prayer in schools in two landmark cases in the early 1960s: Engel v. Vitale in 1962 and Abington School District v. Schempp one year later.

“We have spent 60 years telling God to get lost,” Fischer said. “What if every single day in [James Holmes’] educational process, there had been readings from the word of God … Who knows if things could have been different. But we’ve tried it the other way. The point of my column, we’ve tried it the liberals’ way for 60 years now. What do we got? We have massacres in Aurora.”

Fischer did not mention the fact that James Holmes’ family belonged to the Penasquitos Lutheran Church for about ten years, as originally reported by the Associated Press. Holmes’ mother still attends services there regularly.

The American Family Association is no stranger to controversy. In comments made during a segment of the AFA Journal program on Friday and reported by Right Wing Watch, AFA news director Fred Jackson, co-host Teddy James and guest Jerry Newcombe of the Truth in Action Ministries suggested that violent incidents in America, including in Aurora, were evidence of God’s judgement.

“The AFA Journal has been dealing with denominations that no longer believe in the God of the Bible,” Jackson said. “They no longer believe that Jesus is the only way of salvation, they teach that God is OK with homosexuality, this is just increasing more and more. It is mankind shaking its fist at the authority of God.”

“And God will not be silent when he’s mocked, and we need to remember that,”James said, to which Jackson replied, “We are seeing his judgment. You know, some people talk about ‘God’s judgment must be just around the corner,’ we are seeing it.”

World Bank’s Jim Yong Kim: ‘I want to eradicate poverty’ (The Guardian)

World Bank president says he will bring sense of urgency to efforts to end global poverty in exclusive Guardian interview

Sarah Boseley, health editor, in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 July 2012 13.48 BST

Jim Yong KimJim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, speaks at the opening session of the International Aids Conference in Washington on 22 July. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The new president of the World Bank is determined to eradicate globalpoverty through goals, targets and measuring success in the same way that he masterminded an Aids drugs campaign for poor people nearly a decade ago.

Jim Yong Kim, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian, said he was passionately committed to ending absolute poverty, which threatens survival and makes progress impossible for the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 a day.

“I want to eradicate poverty,” he said. “I think that there’s a tremendous passion for that inside the World Bank.”

Kim, who took over at the World Bank three weeks ago and is not only the first doctor and scientist (he is also an anthropologist) to be president but the first with development experience, will set “a clear, simple goal” in the eradication of absolute poverty. Getting there, however, needs progress on multiple, but integrated, fronts.

“The evidence suggests that you’ve got to do a lot of good, good things in unison, to be able to make that happen,” said Kim. “The private sectorhas to grow, you have to have social protection mechanisms, you have to have a functioning health and education system. The scientific evidence strongly suggests that it has to be green – you have to do it in a way that is sustainable both for the environment and financially. All the great themes that we’ve been dealing with here have to come together to eradicate poverty from the face of the Earth.”

Kim, who was previously head of the Ivy League Dartmouth College, is probably best known for his stint at the World Health Organisation (WHO), where he challenged the system to move faster in making Aids drugs available to people with HIV in the developing world who were dying in large numbers. In 2003, he set a target of 3 million people being on treatment by 2005 – thereafter known as “3 by 5”. The target was not met on time, but it did focus minds and rapidly speed up the pace of the rollout, which included setting up clinics and training healthcare staff.

Now, he says, he thinks he can do the same for poverty. “What 3 by 5 did that we just didn’t expect was to set a tempo to the response; it created a sense of urgency. There was pace and rhythm in the way we did things. We think we can do something similar for poverty,” he said.

Asked if he would set a date this time, he said he was sorely tempted, but would not yet. “We don’t know what they will be yet, but [there will be] goals, and counting. We need to keep up and say where we are making successes and why, and when are we going to be held to account next for the level of poverty. If we can build that kind of pace and rhythm into the movement, we think we can make a lot more progress,” he said in his office at the Bank in Washington.

Kim was seen by many as a surprise choice for president. During the election, critics argued there should be an economist at the helm. Some said that, as a doctor, he would focus too much on health.

But Kim, who co-founded Partners In Health, which pioneered sustainable, high-quality healthcare for poor people, first in Haiti and later in Africa, said his three years at the WHO have been the only ones of his career that were solely devoted to health.

“It’s always been about poverty, so for me, making the switch to being here at the Bank is really not that much of a stretch. I’ve been doing this all my life and we’re in a bit of the spotlight because of the stuff we did in healthcare but it was really always about poverty,” he said.

Partners in Health offered HIV and tuberculosis treatment to poor people in Haiti for the first time. “We were trying to make a point. And the point we were trying to make was that just because people are poor shouldn’t mean that they shouldn’t have access to high quality healthcare. It was always based in social justice, it was always based in the notion that people had a right to live a dignified life. The good news is that this place – the Bank – is just full of people like that.”

Kim, who has spent his first weeks talking to Bank staff with expertise in a huge range of areas, strongly believes in the integration of all aspects of development, and says the staff do too. He cites a new hospital Partners built in Rwanda, which led to the building of a road to get there and then the expansion of mobile phone networks in the area. “In a very real sense, we’ve always believed that investing in health means investing in the wellbeing and development of that entire community,” he said.

Speaking to the International Aids Conference in Washington this week – the first World Bank president to do so – Kim told activists and scientists that the end of Aids no longer looked as far-fetched as the 3 by 5 plan had appeared in 2003. Science has delivered tools, such as drugs that not only treat but prevent infection.

But the cost of drugs for life for 15 million or more people is not sustainable, he says. Donors are unlikely to foot the bill. Hard-hit developing countries have to be helped to grow so they can pay for the drugs and healthcare systems they need.

Kim would like the highly active HIV community to broaden its focus. “We’ve had Aids exceptionalism for a long time and Aids exceptionalism has been incredibly important. It has been so productive for all of us,” he said. “But I think that as we go beyond the emergency response and think about the long-term sustainable response, conversations such as how do we spur growth in the private sector have to be part of the discussion.”

Every country wants economic growth, he says, and people want jobs. “If I care about poverty, I have to care a lot about investments in the private sector. The private sector creates the vast majority of jobs in the world and social protection only goes so far,” he said.

Nevertheless, he is a big proponent of social protection policies. “I’ve always been engaged in social protection programmes. But now it is really a signature of the World Bank. We’re very good at helping people look at their public expenditures and we say to them things like, fuel subsidies really aren’t very helpful to the poor – what you really need is to remove fuel subsidies and focus on things like conditional cash transfer plans. The Bank is great at that.”

New to him are climate change and sustainability, he says. “We are watching things happen with one degree changes in ocean temperature that we thought wouldn’t happen until there were two or three degree changes in ocean temperature. These are facts. These are things that have actually happened … I think we now have plenty of evidence that should push us into thinking that this is disturbing data and should spur us to think ever more seriously about clean energy and how can we move our focus more towards clean energy.”

But poor countries are saying they need more energy and we must respect that, he says. “It’s hard to say to them we still do it but you can’t … I think our role is to say the science suggests strongly to us that we should help you looking for clean energy solutions.”

Hunter-gatherers, Westerners use same amount of energy, contrary to theory (PLoS)

Lindsay Morton
Public Library of Science

25-Jul-2012

Results contradict previously held idea that rising obesity is due to lowered energy expenditure

Modern lifestyles are generally quite different from those of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, a fact that some claim as the cause of the current rise in global obesity, but new results published July 25 in the open access journal PLoS ONE find that there is no difference between the energy expenditure of modern hunter-gatherers and Westerners, casting doubt on this theory.

The research team behind the study, led by Herman Pontzer of Hunter College in New York City, along with David Raichlen of the University of Arizona and Brian M. Wood of Stanford measured daily energy expenditure (calories per day) among the Hadza, a population of traditional hunter-gatherers living in the open savannah of northern Tanzania. Despite spending their days trekking long distances to forage for wild plants and game, the Hadza burned no more calories each day than adults in the U.S. and Europe. The team ran several analyses accounting for the effects of body weight, body fat percentage, age, and gender. In all analyses, daily energy expenditure among the Hadza hunter-gatherers was indistinguishable from that of Westerners. The study was the first to measure energy expenditure in hunter-gatherers directly; previous studies had relied entirely on estimates.

These findings upend the long-held assumption that our hunter-gatherer ancestors expended more energy than modern populations, and challenge the view that obesity in Western populations results from decreased energy expenditure. Instead, the similarity in daily energy expenditure across a broad range of lifestyles suggests that habitual metabolic rates are relatively constant among human populations. This in turn supports the view that the current rise in obesity is due to increased food consumption, not decreased energy expenditure.

The authors emphasize that physical exercise is nonetheless important for maintaining good health. In fact, the Hadza spend a greater percentage of their daily energy budget on physical activity than Westerners do, which may contribute to the health and vitality evident among older Hadza. Still, the similarity in daily energy expenditure between Hadza hunter-gatherers and Westerners suggests that we have more to learn about human physiology and health, particularly in non-Western settings.

“These results highlight the complexity of energy expenditure. It’s not simply a function of physical activity,” says Pontzer. “Our metabolic rates may be more a reflection of our shared evolutionary past than our diverse modern lifestyles.”

Citation: Pontzer H, Raichlen DA, Wood BM, Mabulla AZP, Racette SB, et al. (2012) Hunter-Gatherer Energetics and Human Obesity. PLoS ONE7(7): e40503. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040503

Local Weather Patterns Affect Beliefs About Global Warming (Science Daily)

People living in places experiencing warmer-than-normal temperatures at the time they were surveyed were significantly more likely than others to say there is evidence for global warming. (Credit: © Rafael Ben-Ari / Fotolia)

ScienceDaily (July 25, 2012) — Local weather patterns temporarily influence people’s beliefs about evidence for global warming, according to research by political scientists at New York University and Temple University. Their study, which appears in theJournal of Politics, found that those living in places experiencing warmer-than-normal temperatures at the time they were surveyed were significantly more likely than others to say there is evidence for global warming.

“Global climate change is one of the most important public policy challenges of our time, but it is a complex issue with which Americans have little direct experience,” wrote the study’s co-authors, Patrick Egan of New York University and Megan Mullin of Temple University. “As they try to make sense of this difficult issue, many people use fluctuations in local temperature to reassess their beliefs about the existence of global warming.”

Their study examined five national surveys of American adults sponsored by the Pew Research Center: June, July, and August 2006, January 2007, and April 2008. In each survey, respondents were asked the following question: “From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?” On average over the five surveys, 73 percent of respondents agreed that Earth is getting warmer.

Egan and Mullin wondered about variation in attitudes among the survey’s respondents, and hypothesized that local temperatures could influence perceptions. To measure the potential impact of temperature on individuals’ opinions, they looked at zip codes from respondents in the Pew surveys and matched weather data to each person surveyed at the time of each poll. They used local weather data to determine if the temperature in the location of each respondent was significantly higher or lower than normal for that area at that time of year.

Their results showed that an abnormal shift in local temperature is associated with a significant shift in beliefs about evidence for global warming. Specifically, for every three degrees Fahrenheit that local temperatures in the past week have risen above normal, Americans become one percentage point more likely to agree that there is ”solid evidence” that Earth is getting warmer. The researchers found cooler-than-normal temperatures have similar effects on attitudes — but in the opposite direction.

The study took into account other variables that may explain the results — such as existing political attitudes and geography — and found the results still held.

The researchers also wondered if heat waves — or prolonged higher-than-normal temperatures — intensified this effect. To do so, they looked at respondents living in areas that experienced at least seven days of temperatures of 10° or more above normal in the three weeks prior to interview and compared their views with those who experienced the same number of hot days, but did not experience a heat wave.

Their estimates showed that the effect of a heat wave on opinion is even greater, increasing the share of Americans believing in global warming by 5.0 to 5.9 percentage points.

However, Egan and Mullin found the effects of temperature changes to be short-lived — even in the wake of heat waves. Americans who had been interviewed after 12 or more days had elapsed since a heat wave were estimated to have attitudes that were no different than those who had not been exposed to a heat wave.

“Under typical circumstances, the effects of temperature fluctuations on opinion are swiftly wiped out by new weather patterns,” they wrote. “More sustained periods of unusual weather cause attitudes to change both to a greater extent and for a longer period of time. However, even these effects eventually decay, leaving no long-term impact of weather on public opinion.”

The findings make an important contribution to the political science research on the relationship between personal experience and opinion on a larger issue, which has long been studied with varying results.

“On issues such as crime, the economy, education, health care, public infrastructure, and taxation, large shares of the public are exposed to experiences that could logically be linked to attitude formation,” the researchers wrote. “But findings from research examining how these experiences affect opinion have been mixed. Although direct experience — whether it be as a victim of crime, a worker who has lost a job or health insurance, or a parent with children in public schools — can influence attitudes, the impact of these experiences tends to be weak or nonexistent after accounting for typical predictors such as party identification and liberal-conservative ideology.”

“Our research suggests that personal experience has substantial effects on political attitudes,” Egan and Mullin concluded. “Rich discoveries await those who can explore these questions in ways that permit clean identification of these effects.”

Egan is an assistant professor in the Wilf Family Department of Politics at NYU and Mullin is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Temple University

Concerns Over Accuracy of Tools to Predict Risk of Repeat Offending (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (July 24, 2012) — Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behavior in 73 samples involving 24,827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis

Tools designed to predict an individual’s risk of repeat offending are not sufficient on their own to inform sentencing and release or discharge decisions, concludes a study published on the British Medical Journal website.

Although they appear to identify low risk individuals with high levels of accuracy, the authors say “their use as sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release is not supported by the current evidence.”

Risk assessment tools are widely used in psychiatric hospitals and criminal justice systems around the world to help predict violent behavior and inform sentencing and release decisions. Yet their predictive accuracy remains uncertain and expert opinion is divided.

So an international research team, led by Seena Fazel at the University of Oxford, set out to investigate the predictive validity of tools commonly used to assess the risk of violence, sexual, and criminal behavior.

They analyzed risk assessments conducted on 24,827 people from 13 countries including the UK and the US. Of these, 5,879 (24%) offended over an average of 50 months.

Differences in study quality were taken into account to identify and minimize bias.

Their results show that risk assessment tools produce high rates of false positives (individuals wrongly identified as being at high risk of repeat offending) and predictive accuracy at around chance levels when identifying risky persons. For example, 41% of individuals judged to be at moderate or high risk by violence risk assessment tools went on to violently offend, while 23% of those judged to be at moderate or high risk by sexual risk assessment tools went on to sexually offend.

Of those judged to be at moderate or high risk of committing any offense, just over half (52%) did. However, of those predicted not to violently offend, 91% did not, suggesting that these tools are more effective at screening out individuals at low risk of future offending.

Factors such as gender, ethnicity, age or type of tool used did not appear to be associated with differences in predictive accuracy.

Although risk assessment tools are widely used in clinical and criminal justice settings, their predictive accuracy varies depending on how they are used, say the authors.

“Our review would suggest that risk assessment tools, in their current form, can only be used to roughly classify individuals at the group level, not to safely determine criminal prognosis in an individual case,” they conclude. The extent to which these instruments improve clinical outcomes and reduce repeat offending needs further research, they add.

Suicidas pensam o impensável (FSP)

26/07/2012 – 03h00

Clóvis Rossi

Até na Espanha, campeã

Que a Espanha está se suicidando lentamente não há muitas dúvidas. Desde 2010 pelo menos, os governos adotam pacotes de austeridade, compostos pela receita óbvia: aumento de impostos mais corte de gastos.

O objetivo é saciar o apetite dos mercados, que querem ter certeza de que a Espanha vai pagar a sua dívida, para o que necessita reduzi-la e reduzir igualmente o déficit público, sem o que é obrigada a tomar empréstimos para continuar operando.

Funcionou? Nada. Não funcionou do ponto de vista social (o desemprego, por exemplo, está beirando os 25%, taxa que só alcançam países devastados por guerras ou fenômenos naturais).
Por mim, é o ponto principal, mas admito que sou muito solitário ao pensar desse jeito.

Mas tampouco funcionou no seu propósito de sossegar os mercados: a Espanha está pagando mais de 7% para colocar seus títulos, nível considerado crítico e que, ao ser atingido em Portugal e na Grécia, levou ao naufrágio desses dois países.

Aí, as autoridades descobrem o óbvio, como o fizeram anteontem não só o ministro espanhol de Finanças, Luis de Guindos, como o alemão, Wolfgang Schäuble. Constataram que “as taxas [impostas à Espanha pelos mercados] não representam nem seus fundamentos econômicos nem seu potencial de crescimento nem sua capacidade de pagar suas dívidas públicas”.

O “Financial Times” em seu noticiário sobre a crise reforça essa sensação, ao culpar pelo pânico “falhas dos mercados de títulos, não a economia espanhola ou a política econômica”.

É bom lembar que nem De Guindos nem Schäuble nem o FT são anti-mercado.

Falta, no entanto, que alguém ponha de pé algo que possa superar as “falhas” dos mercados para fazer cessar o pânico.

Enquanto isso não acontece, pensa-se o impensável, como é próprio de situações próximas do suicídio. Pela primeira vez que eu tenha lido, um espanhol ousou mencionar a hipótese de a Espanha deixar o euro e voltar à peseta.

Foi Antonio Estella, catedrático de Direito Administrativo da Universidade Carlos 3.o de Madri, em artigo para “El País”.

Digo impensável porque a integração com a Europa tem sido, há mais de meio século, o pote de ouro da Espanha, responsável em grande medida pela volta da democracia e, com ela, por um surto formidável de desenvolvimento, que mudou radicalmente a face daquele país atrasado, exportador de mão-de-obra, fechado, cinzento.

Talvez o impensável esteja sendo pensado porque a política de suicídio lento trouxe de volta a exportação em massa de espanhóis: só no primeiro semestre, 40.025 pessoas deixaram um país que até a crise importava estrangeiros em massa. Há um ano, havia 5,144 milhões de estrangeiros em uma Espanha de 46,24 milhões de habitantes.

O pior é que o impensável não é uma boa alternativa, como explica Martin Feldstein, professor de Harvard e crítico de toda a vida do euro: “Embora a criação da eurozona tenha sido um erro econômico, permitir que se dissolva agora seria muito custoso para governos, investidores e cidadãos”, escreveu para o FT.

As armas do vazio mental (FSP)

26/07/2012 – 03h00

Janio de Freitas

Mais duas explicações estão lançadas em socorro à recusa do governo brasileiro, agora mesmo na ONU, de votar a favor da transparência no comércio internacional de armas.

Diz um dos dois argumentos que já está em prática, na indústria bélica, a inscrição indelével, a laser e em cada arma e projétil, indicando sua procedência. Assim será possível saber, quando de violações das normas internacionais e transgressão dos direitos humanos, o país que forneceu as armas em uso.

Belo e carinhoso consolo, sem dúvida, para as crianças que perderem seus pais e para os pais que perderem seus filhos estilhaçados por armamentos, agora sim, de procedência inapagável. Para usufruir do consolo, porém, resta ainda um pequeno problema que a inventividade dos engenheiros da matança, por certo, vai resolver.

Fatos atuais ajudam a expor a questão pendente. Há 24 horas noticia-se, inclusive com fotos e vídeos, o recurso do ditador sírio Bashar Assad ao bombardeio aéreo de cidades do seu país.

É um reforço mais drástico e preciso aos tiros de canhões, no entanto continuados. E às metralhas pesadas e também canhões dos tanques.

A população civil vê e ouve os aviões, e vê as bombas em direção a suas casas, suas famílias, à vizinhança. Não vê os canhões e não é certo que ouça os seus estrondos, mas ouve o silvo fino e feroz de suas balas cortando o ar. Todas essas peças assassinas com sua procedência devidamente identificada. Ainda a tinta ou talvez já a laser.

A população vê e ouve os sinais do sofrimento e da morte. Mas lerá a inscrição dos petardos em seu voo? E depois de bombas, balas e foguetes destruídos por sua própria explosão, onde estarão as inscrições para a comprometedora “identificação de quem os forneceu”? É provável que parte deles até ostentasse o nosso “made in Brazil”. Impossível afirmar ou negar: sabemos estar entre os exportadores de bombas terríveis, mas estamos proibidos de saber para quem as exportamos.

Não se sabe se o outro argumento foi criado pelo mesmo vácuo mental que invocou a “inscrição identificadora”, ou se foi um dos prodígios intelectuais que a adotam no Itamaraty, nas Forças Armadas, no jornalismo. A suposição de que os outros também padecemos de idiotia é a mesma, nos dois argumentos.

Eis o segundo: o sigilo das exportações de armas é necessário porque os compradores querem segredo do tipo e quantidade de seus armamentos.

Antes de tudo: nem sempre. Com a ideia fixa (da qual emanava certo cheiro de charuto cubano) de que os Estados Unidos usariam a Colômbia para atacar a Venezuela, Hugo Chávez tratou de alardear suas grandes compras militares. Se houve, o risco arrefeceu e foi silenciado pelo novo presidente colombiano, Juan Manuel Santos, mais lúcido do que o antecessor Uribe.

Acima de tudo, a conveniência militar alheia não é problema a ser resolvido pelo Brasil. Ainda mais se o pretendente a comprador é uma ameaça a relações normais com seus vizinhos ou à liberdade e aos direitos humanos em seu país.

Esta regra essencial no Estado de Direito é transgredida pelo Brasil, com suas exportações de bombas condenadas e outras armas para o Oriente Médio e para ditaduras africanas. E ainda em operações triangulares: a exportação para a ditadura de Robert Mugabe, do Zimbábue, no governo Fernando Henrique, foi tornar mais feroz a terrível guerra civil no Congo. Mas, nas organizações internacionais, e em casa mesmo, o governo brasileiro mostrava-se muito condoído com o genocídio congolês.

 

Gustavo Grabia, repórter do Olé, sobre violência de torcidas: “futebol argentino virou um enorme funeral” (Trivela)

17 de Julho de 2012 às 03:13, por Ubiratan Leal

Onipotentes. As barras bravas argentinas já deixaram de ser apenas torcedores que se organizaram para torcer por seu clube. E fora muito além do que se conhece no Brasil, com brigas entre simpatizantes de equipes rivais. Lá, esses grupos ganharam ramificação criminal, usando a projeção que as arquibancadas de futebol lhes dão para criar toda uma estrutura de delitos que vão do tráfico de drogas ao combate de manifestações políticas contra o partido que os contratar como mercenários.

Quem conta essa história é Gustavo Grabia, repórter do Olé, maior jornal esportivo da Argentina, e autor do livro La Doce (lançado no Brasil pela Panda Books), que revela as atividades da barra brava do Boca Juniors. Segundo ele próprio, o poder dos torcedores se tornou tão grande que parece impossível mudar o cenário.

Na Argentina, as brigas de torcedores rivais diminuíram muito. Qual é a nova cara da violência de torcidas?
Não acontece, mesmo com times do mesmo bairro, como Racing e Independiente. O maior medo do torcedor organizado é perder seu negócio. E como ele perde o negócio? Se briga e morre alguém. Porque, se morre alguém, os políticos determinam que alguém tem de cair no comando da torcida. Tudo bem que colocam outro no lugar, mas alguém acaba caindo. Par manter o negócio, não se pode brigar com outro clube. Quando acontece algo como na morte mais recente, em uma briga dentro da torcida do River, as pessoas pensam “se mataram entre eles, que se matem todos”. Vêem como um problema interno da máfia, a pressão por atitudes oficiais é bem menor.

Até porque mexeria com o orgulho do torcedor cujo barra brava foi morto, mesmo que ele não seja um barra brava, e cobraria mais por atitudes.
Certamente, e é por essas coisas que não acontece mais. Os chefes de torcida se conhecem, fazem negócios juntos. Durante a semana estão juntos em uma ONG de torcedores criada e financiadas pelo governo para agir em favor dele. Os torcedores de Racing e Independiente supostamente se odeiam, mas trabalham juntos para o mesmo político. Como vão brigar no domingo se durante a semana estão juntos nos mesmos delitos? Em Rosário, os líderes das torcidas de Newell’s e Rosario Central são sócios no tráfico de drogas, dominam regiões da cidade. Depois, cada um vai ao estádio fazer seu próprio negócio. Então, eles não brigam para não prejudicar todo o negócio.

O que essa ONG de torcedores financiada pelo governo faz?
Recebe dinheiro para trabalhar pelo partido do governo reprimindo opositores, marchas sindicais. Usaram os torcedores organizados para terceirizar a violência. Por exemplo, na Copa de 2010, o governo recrutou as torcidas organizadas para trabalharem pelo partido dele nas ruas, fazendo atos políticos. Uma situação muito louca. Em troca disso, pagou 232 passagens e hospedagens à África do Sul. Isso foi um escândalo internacional. A polícia sul-africana deportou quase 30 integrantes desse grupo.

Então a chance de as autoridades fazerem algo contra os torcedores é pequena.
Para ter uma ideia, o advogado do chefe da torcida do Boca era o advogado do chefe da polícia. E essa pessoa, depois, foi indicada como chefe de segurança do Congresso. O advogado do chefe da torcida tem como cliente a polícia e os partidos políticos! Como as autoridades vão perseguir alguém se compartilham advogados? Essas relações de poder na Argentina nunca vi em lugar algum do mundo. O chefe de segurança da Eurocopa esteve na Argentina ano passado e, quando eu explicava, ele não acreditava. Foi aos estádios para comprovar, e ficou horrorizado. Acha que não dá para consertar. Afinal, se o torcedor organizado tira uma foto com a presidente Cristina Kirchner, por que não teria impunidade?

Foto com a presidente?
Em setembro do ano passado, o San Lorenzo estava lutando para não ser rebaixado. A barra brava foi cobrar os jogadores e o chefe dela agrediu o capitão do time. Não aconteceu nada. Fui investigar e achei fotos dele em um ato político abraçado com a Cristina Kirschner! Com a presidente da República! Então, esse sujeito tem acesso à presidente. Eu sou um jornalista reconhecido e não tenho acesso a ela. Um monte de gente importante e conhecida não tem acesso a ela. Mas esse delinquente tem e tira uma foto ao lado dela. Não significa que ele seja amigo dela, mas, no mínimo, conhece pessoas influentes que conseguem colocá-lo ao lado dela em um ato político. Se esse apoio político não acaba, não há como combater o problema.

Em que nível está esse problema hoje?
Em relação a mortes, foram dez vítimas até agora em 2012. Mas isso são apenas os registros ligados ao futebol. Não estão computados os crimes cometidos por eles em questões políticas ou sindicais. Todos os últimos crimes de violência política ou sindical na Argentina têm barras bravas como responsáveis. São contratados pelos políticos para fazer o trabalho sujo. Também fazem delinquência comum, como narcotráfico. São uma máfia mesmo, com interesses em seus negócios e não mais nos clubes para os quais supostamente torcem. Um dos líderes de La Doce, a torcida do Boca, é torcedor do River Plate. Por quê? Porque essa pessoa viu que na torcida do Boca gira mais dinheiro.

E a torcida do Boca o aceita por quê?
Ele é um delinquente muito perigoso. Esteve em prisões de segurança máxima. Mas tem contatos com o mundo criminal e com políticos. É conveniente para os negócios ter um homem como ele na organização.

As leis argentinas são frouxas nessa questão ou dariam suporte a quem quisesse combater as barras bravas?
Existem as leis, o problema é que não se aplicam a quem precisa. Se você vai a um estádio, tem cinco minutos de loucura e atira algo no árbitro, será levado a uma delegacia. Provavelmente você não será preso, mas deve receber uma pena de ficar longe de estádios por um longo período. Se você fosse de uma torcida organizada, poderia fazer o que quisesse que nunca iriam até você. Antes de vir ao Brasil, o último morto do futebol argentino foi há três semanas, em um jogo do River contra o Boca Unidos, o penúltimo antes da promoção. Assassinaram uma pessoa nas arquibancadas em uma briga nos Borrachos del Tablón [barra brava do River Plate]. Quando a Justiça foi buscar as gravações das câmeras de segurança para identificar os responsáveis, as imagens da briga em si tinham sido apagadas. O médico que fazia o atendimento naquele jogo contou que os líderes da torcida levaram o corpo do rapaz dizendo “olha, aqui tem um que parece que está morrendo” e foram embora. Tudo dentro da torcida do River.

Como uma briga de máfia, em que um irmão manda matar o outro para ser herdeiro nos negócios do pai.
Isso. Os últimos dez mortos no futebol argentino foram em disputas dentro das torcidas.

Que se pode fazer para que as leis sejam aplicadas se eles têm tanto poder com as autoridades?
Não se pode fazer nada se os políticos mais importantes os utilizam. A barra brava do Boca é a maior e mais violenta do país e o governo já a utilizou para a campanha eleitoral de outubro do ano passado. Pagava para que levassem bandeirões com mensagens políticas. Francisco de Narváez, candidato mais importante à província de Buenos Aires, paga a La Doce para exibir um bandeirão escrito “Narváez governador”. Depois disso, eles podem fazer o que quiserem.

Quando fazem isso, vendem espaço publicitário. Um espaço publicitário que seria indiretamente do clube. Ainda que o clube não possa vender publicidade exibida pelos torcedores, o evento é dele e as pessoas veem o jogo pela TV por causa do clube. Eles não têm interesse em eles usarem seu poder de mídia para eles ganharem esse dinheiro, e não a torcida?
Em princípio, os clubes são sócios das torcidas, que também trabalham para os interesses dos dirigentes.

Como o Mauricio Macri [prefeito de Buenos Aires, ex-presidente do Boca]?
O crescimento da barra brava do Boca foi tremendo quando Mauricio Macri estava na presidência. Ele emprestava o estádio para os barras bravas jogarem bola! Mas não foi só ele. É que o Macri é o personagem mais conhecido que saiu do esporte e ingressou na política.

Se os barras bravas vivem desses negócios extracampo, por que ainda precisam do futebol?
Porque o futebol dá cartaz a eles. Na Argentina, os torcedores organizados são muito populares, têm tratamento de estrelas. O chefe da torcida do Boca e dá tantos autógrafos quanto Riquelme ou Palermo. O futebol retroalimenta a relação deles com os políticos. Porque, se põem uma bandeirão no jogo do Boca, têm enorme visibilidade. Um jogo do Boca tem 30% de audiência, 9 milhões de pessoas. Então a eles é conveniente falar com o chefe da torcida.

Então o futebol ainda representa uma ao parte da receita desse negócio, mesmo com as atividades extracampo?
Representa muito. Sem o futebol, todos os outros negócios ilegais não existiriam. Eles conseguem todos os outros negócios por serem os chefes de torcidas. Eles vendem ingressos, até 5 mil em uma partida. Se um ingresso médio está US$ 12, são US$ 60 mil em um jogo. Eles controlam o trabalho de guardador de carro, de flanelinha. Não sei como é aqui.

Aqui são “profissionais autônomos”.
Então, lá são controlados pelos barras bravas. Em março, houve um tiroteio muito grande por causa disso. Uma parte da torcida queria essa fatia do negócio e outra parte não queria abrir mão. Trocaram tiros, a poucas quadras de La Bombonera. Isso dá muito dinheiro. Há também as festas com os jogadores. Ao contrário do que ocorre no Brasil, onde as equipes de fora de Rio e São Paulo têm muita força, as equipes provinciais não são tão fortes na Argentina. Mesmo em Rosário, é provável que o Boca tenha mais torcida que o Central ou o Newell’s. Aí, a barra brava leva jogadores do time a filiais no interior. Digamos, levam Riquelme a Luján, a 200 km de Buenos Aires. Montam um evento para mil pessoas, cobrando ingresso para quem quiser ver, tirar foto e pegar o autógrafo com o ídolo.

Era algo que o clube poderia explorar.
Sim, mas deixa para os barras bravas fazerem. É uma coisa muito grande. Para cada evento desses, faturam US$ 20 mil.

E quanto se pode ganhar com isso?
Mauro Martín, presidente de La Doce, não tem trabalho reconhecido. Já vi suas declarações de imposto de renda e ele alega que é instrutor de boxe em um clube. Ele nunca vai lá. E basta ver o nível de vida que ele tem para perceber que tem algo errado. Ele possui uma picape Honda nova, que custa uns US$ 150 mil na Argentina, um Mini Cooper e uma casa de dois andares, com campo oficial de futebol. Imagina o tamanho do terreno. E diz que é instrutor de boxe ou que trabalha no escritório de seu advogado, que é um dos mais famosos da Argentina.

Ele teria de ser instrutor de boxe de Manny Pacquiao.
Pois é. E ele faz tudo isso e não é pego. Por quê? Bem, ele é casado com a secretária particular do governador de Buenos Aires. O chefe da barra brava do Boca Juniors é casado com a secretária da segunda pessoa mais importante da Argentina. Então, ele pode fazer qualquer coisa que ninguém vai incomodar.

Nas equipes provinciais, acontece a mesma coisa?
Tudo o/ que eu conto com La Doce ocorre igual em todas as equipes da Argentina. Pelo menos, coisas da mesma natureza. A única diferença é o peso de cada torcida pelo volume que mexe de acordo com o tamanho do clube. Eu sou torcedor do Ferro Carril, um time pequeno que está na segunda divisão. Lá acontece a mesma coisa, mas em menor quantidade porque é uma equipe pequena. O chefe da torcida do Ferro também não tem trabalho, mas, ao invés de uma picape Honda e um Mini Cooper, tem um carro normal. Ao invés de uma casa com dois andares, tem um apartamento de 150 m². Mas a forma de organização é a mesma nos clubes.

Economicamente, a diferença entre o futebol brasileiro e o argentino está aumentando. Quanto o futebol argentino perde por não explorar tudo o que pode por repartir com as barras bravas?
É muito dinheiro que perdem. Mas os dirigentes não têm interesse em mudar. Os clubes são associações civis sem fins lucrativos. Se o clube abre falência, o dirigente vai embora e não é responsabilizado. Fora que eles também ganham uma parcela. É algo conjunto.

Como assim?
Um bom exemplo foi a venda do Higuaín ao Real Madrid. Foi uma operação fraudulenta. O que apareceu no balanço do River Plate foi muito menor do que o pago pelo Real. O Real disse que pagou € 14 milhões, mas o River registrou a entrada de € 9 milhões. O balanço só foi aprovado porque os dirigentes de oposição foram ameaçados de morte pela barra brava. Eles entraram no recinto onde era a votação e ameaçaram de morte se não votassem a favor. Era algo contra o caixa do clube. Os € 5 milhões de diferença entre os valores foram repartidos entre todos, com 10% para os Borrachos del Tablón.

Há barras bravas menores nos clubes, que brigam por “mercado” com as maiores?
Não. Não há concorrência de barras de um mesmo clube. Não é que existe La Doce e “La Fiel de Boca” brigando por espaço como barras bravas do Boca. Há uma só por clube, e os confrontos são por poder e negócios dentro de cada uma.

A polícia também tem participação no esquema das organizadas?
De várias formas. Na temporada passada, naquele jogo em que o River caiu contra o Belgrano, o placar estava empatado. Se terminasse assim, o River caía. No intervalo, os dirigentes e os policiais liberaram o acesso para 12 torcedores conhecidos da organizada do River descessem das arquibancadas, andassem internamente pelos corredores do Monumental de Núñez e chegassem aos vestiários do árbitro, onde o ameaçaram de morte. Se ele não marcasse um pênalti, seria morto. Bem, o pênalti foi marcado, mas o River o desperdiçou e acabou caindo mesmo. Insólito! O incrível é que esses torcedores tiveram apoio dos dirigentes e da chefia da polícia. Tive acesso ao vídeo e se vê claramente como os policiais orientam os torcedores por onde ir para chegar aos vestiários. E não acontece nada quando isso chega à Justiça. Isso aconteceu há um ano e ainda estão discutindo se o tal vídeo é uma prova válida ou não para o caso. E, claro, nada aconteceu com os responsáveis até agora. É conveniente para a polícia que a violência siga.

Conveniente como?
Ela tira vantagem da violência. Há dois anos, houve uma investigação grande que envolveu até a cúpula da divisão de esportes da polícia. Consegui provas de como eles combinavam com os torcedores para criar violência. Porque, se há violência, eles têm argumentos para pedir mais efetivo para a segurança nas partidas, um serviço cobrado dos clubes e da AFA. Cada policial recebe US$ 40 por partida trabalhada. Então, no jogo que teria 300 agentes eles pedem mil, alegando que a partida anterior teve diversos problemas. Mas ficou comprovado que não levam mil policiais. Levam 500 e embolsam o resto. O Congresso tomou a denúncia e demitiu diretores a polícia.

Há grupos políticos ou algum setor da sociedade que se coloquem contra os barras bravas?
Há uma ONG, que se chama “Salvemos al Fútbol”, que trabalha contra a violência no futebol. Mas não tem muito poder. Até organizam mobilizações, mas não são muito populares. Eles levam à Justiça as questões que eu apresento no jornal, mas é um grupo pequeno. Eu já falei que o único jeito de mudar o cenário atual é uma greve de torcedores, ninguém mais ir ao estádio. Se a TV mostrar um Boca x River com estádio vazio, só com mil torcedores organizados de cada lado, os políticos perceberão que está acontecendo algo muito grave. Mas os torcedores dizem que se pode fazer tudo, menos deixar de ir ao estádio. Na Argentina há movimentos de indignação quando morre alguém, mas depois passa.

O presidente do Independiente entrou em conflito com a barra brava do clube. Foi o único dirigente a tentar fazer isso?
Foi. O Independiente era completamente dominado pela barra brava. Ela tinha o passe dos jogadores, o campo de treino. O chefe da torcida era o diretor da ONG de torcedores que o governo armou. Então, começaram a ganhar muito dinheiro e muito poder. E o Independiente era um desastre sob o controle da organizada. Ninguém queria ir mais lá, era muita violência. Então, o Javier Cantero fez uma campanha dizendo que tiraria a barra se votassem nele e ganhou.

Ele está tendo sucesso?
Mais ou menos. Ele assumiu em dezembro de 2011 e tentou acertar as coisas com a torcida. Em março eu descobri que ele ainda dava alguns benefícios. Até entendo que não dá para cortar tudo pela raiz, mas aí tem de explicar isso a todos. Ele dava muito menos que antes, mas ainda dava algo para mantê-los tranquilos. Quando publiquei a reportagem, ele admitiu publicamente seu erro, disse que acreditava que era uma forma de manter a barra brava controlada e que passaria a combater seriamente a partir dali. E, quando começou a fazer isso, as coisas ficaram piores.

De que forma?
São suspeitas, porque os jogadores negam. Mas, desde que o Cantero cortou todos os benefícios dos barras bravas, a equipe estranhamente começou a perder uma partida atrás da outra. Perguntam aos jogadores se estão sendo ameaçados pela torcida, exigindo que entreguem o jogo para derrubar o presidente. Eles dizem que não, mas não dá para saber se é verdade. Hoje, o time está brigando para não cair. Quando começar a próxima temporada, o Independiente estará em posição de rebaixamento direto pela média de pontos das últimas temporadas. E é o único clube, ao lado do Boca, que nunca caiu para a segunda divisão.

Se os torcedores do Ferro concordassem em fazer uma greve contra a barra brava do clube, você participaria?
Claro! Porque é o que tem de ser feito para que isso fique explicitado. Quando eu escrevi umas matérias sobre a torcida do Ferro, o líder da torcida me perguntou porque eu o atacava: “Eu faço com que não roubem dentro do nosso bairro. Mandamos roubar fora”. Bem, não tem de roubar em lugar nenhum! São padrinhos da máfia, cada um em seu setor. É uma situação cada vez pior, porque a política, ao invés de combatê-los, os incluiu. A pessoa que gerencia o futebol do Ferro é uma figura muito importante do Partido Justicialista [peronista, partido do governo].

Como foi fazer a investigação de tudo isso, para ter acesso?
Tenho uma vantagem, que é trabalhar há 16 anos com esse tema. Conheço todas as partes envolvidas. Eu colaboro muito com a Justiça ou os advogados que trabalham nesse meio. No caso dos barras bravas que invadiram o vestiário do árbitro no River x Belgrano, a polícia só conhecia dois dos 12. Me chamaram para ver as imagens e identificar os demais. Com isso, acabei tendo acesso ao vídeo e tendo os nomes dos envolvidos. Muitas vezes, acabo tendo mais informações das leis supostamente violadas em um processo que os próprios advogados dos torcedores. Quando precisam de uma informação sobre o que está acontecendo, acabam me passando muita coisa também.

Como as pessoas viram seu livro?
Há três públicos diferentes. Um público é o torcedor normal que admira a barra brava. Na Argentina, um dos problemas é que o torcedor que vai ao estádio admira a torcida organizada e só repudia quando há violência forte. Aí, diz “não, não quero mais”. Depois, passa um tempo, eles voltam a dizer que a torcida é necessária, porque organizam a festa, as bandeiras. Esse público é muito importante e há muitos boquenses que dizem que “hoje, somos os únicos com um livro sobre sua torcida organizada”.

Viram seu livro como prova da grandeza do Boca?
Isso. Cada vez que o Boca é campeão, sai uma revista. E, agora, sai um livro sobre a torcida. Eles encaram La Doce como um livro sobre a história deles próprios, e não é. É sobre o grupo mafioso.

E quais os outros dois públicos do livro?
Outro tipo é o torcedor comum que repudia a torcida organizada. E dizem que o livro comprova o que eles sempre disseram: são máfias e é preciso eliminá-las. Até porque, as relações das torcidas organizadas mostram como são as relações corruptas na Argentina como um todo. E há o grupo de barras bravas. No início, foi um pouco complicada a relação. Quando saiu o livro, reclamaram que me haviam me dito coisas, contado os crimes que cometem, sem saber que sairia um livro sobre isso. Mas, depois, ficam orgulhosos porque saíram um livro sobre eles, com fotos deles. Então, sentem como reconhecimento.

Os barras bravas chegaram a ameaçá-lo?
Sim, mas eu trabalho no Grupo Clarín, o maior da Argentina. Ele tem muito poder. Quando há um problema sério, isso ajuda. E nunca tive um problema grave com os barras bravas. Se eles reclamam, eu digo que vou processá-los pelas ameaças e passa. O problema é quando houve investigações que esbarraram na polícia, no caso da fraude nos efetivos utilizados para fazer segurança nas partidas. E eu tenho mais medo da polícia do que dos barras bravas. Aí tive ameaças sérias.

O que fizeram?
Invadiram minha conta de e-mail, me telefonaram dizendo que horas eu deixava meus filhos na escola. No segundo dia em que isso aconteceu, fui falar com o presidente do Clarín. Ele ligou para o diretor geral da polícia e contou o que acontecia comigo. Disse que, se acontecesse algo comigo no dia seguinte, essa história seria a capa do jornal, com ataques diretos à cúpula da polícia. Não aconteceu mais nada. Mas isso só aconteceu porque trabalho no Clarín. Se trabalhasse em um veículo menor, não teria esse suporte.

Os barras bravas o conhecem. Por que contam os crimes que cometem?
Porque gostam de aparecer no jornal. Gostam de se mostrar. Outro dia, houve um julgamento contra várias figuras importantes de La Doce. Quando terminou o julgamento, 500 barras bravas fecharam a rua, no centro de Buenos Aires, para comemorar. Rafael Di Zeo, chefe de La Doxe e barra brava mais popular da Argentina, se mostrava para fotos. Depois, me deu uma entrevista exclusiva porque eu cubro esse assunto sempre. Ele ainda ficou me perguntando se ia aparecer na capa do jornal! Não queria página interna.

Aqui no Brasil, muita gente acredita que a festa na arquibancada faz o torcedor comum ter alguma simpatia pelas organizadas, mas a violência é importante para atrair novos membros, sobretudo os mais jovens que querem alguma adrenalina e poder. Na Argentina, ser reconhecido como um criminoso que está acima do bem e do mal ajuda também a ter seguidores?
Sim, claro. Há muita gente que vêem nesses barras bravas exemplos de pessoas que começaram de baixo e estão ali no topo. Aí, imaginam que podem conseguir o mesmo. De qualquer modo, a festa no estádio também é importante porque transforma a questão da torcida em “folclore do futebol”, como se diz lá na Argentina. Mas eu acho que nenhum folclore pode ser admitido se uma pessoa morre por violência. E já foram 268 mortos. Não é festa nenhuma, é um funeral enorme.

Brazil study finds youth homicides have soared 346 percent over last three decades (AP)

By Associated Press, Published: July 18

RIO DE JANEIRO — The homicide rate for Brazilian young people under age 19 shot up 346 percent over the past three decades, according to research published Wednesday by the Latin American School of Social Sciences.

During that period, youths became a far higher percentage of Brazil’s murder victims — rising from 11 percent of the total in 1980 to 43 percent in 2010, the report said. The homicide rate for young people rose from 3.1 per 100,000 people younger than 19 years old to 13.8 per 100,000.

This means deadly violence against the most vulnerable members of Brazilian society has surpassed the 10 deaths per 100,000 that mark the accepted threshold of an epidemic, said Julio Jacobo Waiselfisz, a researcher also affiliated with the Brazilian Center for Latin American Studies.

A country’s homicide rate conveys much more than just the number of people who have died, Waiselfisz said.

“Homicide is not a casual act. There is a culture of violence that is leading to the solving of conflicts by exterminating the bothersome element,” he said.

Waiselfisz said part of the increase in youth homicides might be due to the improvement in Brazil’s record keeping in recent decades.

But, he added, it is undeniable Brazil is experiencing an epidemic of violence against young people. Unlike a disease epidemic, however, the violence is not contained or short-lived because it has become part of society, built into relationships, he said.

“There is a discourse that blames the victims, that says these kids are dying because they are doing drugs, or they got into trouble,” Waiselfisz said. “There is a process of institutional omission when faced with these facts, which are taken as natural.”

The numbers in Waiselfisz’s study rank Brazil as the fourth-worst among 91 countries when it comes to youth homicides, behind El Salvador, Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago.

Perla Ribeiro, head of the nonprofit Association of Centers for the Defense of Children and Adolescents, called the study shocking, and said she hoped that Brazilians will face up to this reality and bring some change.

“Society needs to reflect on these numbers. This isn’t something often discussed, this increase in homicides of adolescents,” Ribeiro said. “All levels of government — municipal, state and federal — need to face up to this as a real public policy problem.”

Antonio Carlos Costa, a pastor who has worked for years in some of Rio de Janeiro’s most violent communities, said the homicide numbers aren’t just statistics, but names as well.

“There is Fabiana, who died in Morro dos Macacos, inside her house; there was the case of Juan,” he said, remembering an 11-year-old boy shot by police near his home and dumped in a river. “There is Joao Roberto, who died in Tijuca, and the boy Ramon from Costa Barros …,” he added, then his voice trailed off.

The cases of children who met violent deaths are too many to name, Costa said.

The majority of young victims suffer both at the hands of police and of drug traffickers and other criminal gangs, a part of Brazil that the rest of the population easily forgets — “the expendable Brazil,” he said.

“One thing I can tell you: This survey doesn’t fully reflect reality. Reality is far more dramatic,” Costa said.

He noted the numbers used in the study came from the Health Ministry’s database, and thus reflect deaths officially recorded, not the untold number of poor or marginalized youths whose disappearance or death is simply never recorded.

“Teenagers who are executed, dumped in rivers, those will never be counted,” Costa said.

The War on Suicide? (Time)

Monday, July 23, 2012

By NANCY GIBBS; MARK THOMPSON

Leslie McCaddon sensed that the enemy had returned when she overheard her husband on the phone with their 8-year-old daughter. “Do me a favor,” he told the little girl. “Give your mommy a hug and tell her that I love her.”

She knew for certain when she got his message a few minutes later. “This is the hardest e-mail I’ve ever written,” Dr. Michael McCaddon wrote. “Please always tell my children how much I love them, and most importantly, never, ever let them find out how I died … I love you. Mike”

She grabbed a phone, sounded every alarm, but by the time his co-workers found his body hanging in the hospital call room, it was too late.

Leslie knew her husband, an Army doctor, had battled depression for years. For Rebecca Morrison, the news came more suddenly. The wife of an AH-64 Apache helicopter pilot, she was just beginning to reckon with her husband Ian’s stress and strain. Rebecca urged Ian to see the flight surgeon, call the Pentagon’s crisis hotline. He did–and waited on the line for more than 45 minutes. His final text to his wife: “STILL on hold.” Rebecca found him that night in their bedroom. He had shot himself in the neck.

Grand Praire, TX. Rebecca Morrison with some of her husband Ian’s belongings in her parents homes. Ian, an AH-64 Apache Helicopter pilot in the U.S. Army committed suicide on March 21, 2012. Ian chose ‘Ike’ for Rebecca. Peter van Agtmael/Magnum for TIME.

Both Army captains died on March 21, a continent apart. The next day, and the next day, and the next, more soldiers would die by their own hand, one every day on average, about as many as are dying on the battlefield. These are active-duty personnel, still under the military’s control and protection. Among all veterans, a suicide occurs every 80 minutes, round the clock.

Have suicides spiked because of the strain of fighting two wars? Morrison flew 70 missions in Iraq over nine months but never engaged the enemy directly. McCaddon was an ob-gyn resident at an Army hospital in Hawaii who had never been to Iraq or Afghanistan. Do the pride and protocols of a warrior culture keep service members from seeking therapy? In the three days before he died, Morrison went looking for help six times, all in vain. When Leslie McCaddon alerted commanders about her husband’s anguish, it was dismissed as the result of a lovers’ quarrel; she, not the Army, was the problem.

This is the ultimate asymmetrical war, and the Pentagon is losing. “This issue–suicides–is perhaps the most frustrating challenge that I’ve come across since becoming Secretary of Defense,” Leon Panetta said June 22. The U.S. military seldom meets an enemy it cannot target, cannot crush, cannot put a fence around or drive a tank across. But it has not been able to defeat or contain the epidemic of suicides among its troops, even as the wars wind down and the evidence mounts that the problem has become dire. While veterans account for about 10% of all U.S. adults, they account for 20% of U.S. suicides. Well trained, highly disciplined, bonded to their comrades, soldiers used to be less likely than civilians to kill themselves–but not anymore.

More U.S. military personnel have died by suicide since the war in Afghanistan began than have died fighting there. The rate jumped 80% from 2004 to 2008, and while it leveled off in 2010 and 2011, it has soared 18% this year. Suicide has passed road accidents as the leading noncombat cause of death among U.S. troops. While it’s hard to come by historical data on military suicides–the Army has been keeping suicide statistics only since the early 1980s–there’s no denying that the current numbers constitute a crisis.

The specific triggers for suicide are unique to each service member. The stresses layered on by war–the frequent deployments, the often brutal choices, the loss of comrades, the family separation–play a role. So do battle injuries, especially traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And the constant presence of pain and death can lessen one’s fear of them.

But combat trauma alone can’t account for the trend. Nearly a third of the suicides from 2005 to 2010 were among troops who had never deployed; 43% had deployed only once. Only 8.5% had deployed three or four times. Enlisted service members are more likely to kill themselves than officers, and 18-to-24-year-olds more likely than older troops. Two-thirds do it by gunshot; 1 in 5 hangs himself. And it’s almost always him: nearly 95% of cases are male. A majority are married.

No program, outreach or initiative has worked against the surge in Army suicides, and no one knows why nothing works. The Pentagon allocates about $2 billion–nearly 4% of its $53 billion annual medical bill–to mental health. That simply isn’t enough money, says Peter Chiarelli, who recently retired as the Army’s second in command. And those who seek help are often treated too briefly.

Army officials declined to discuss specific cases. But Kim Ruocco directs suicideprevention programs at the nonprofit Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, or TAPS. She knows what Leslie McCaddon and Rebecca Morrison have endured; her husband, Marine Major John Ruocco, an AH-1 Cobra helicopter-gunship pilot, hanged himself in 2005. These were highly valued, well-educated officers with families, with futures, with few visible wounds or scars; whatever one imagines might be driving the military suicide rate, it defies easy explanation. “I was with them within hours of the deaths,” Ruocco says of the two new Army widows. “I experienced it through their eyes.” Their stories, she says, are true. And they are telling them now, they say, because someone has to start asking the right questions.

The Bomb Grunt

Michael McCaddon was an Army brat born into a uniquely edgy corner of the service: his father served in an ordnance-disposal unit, and after his parents divorced, his mother married another bomb-squad member. McCaddon entered the family business, enlisting at 17. “When I joined the Army I was 5’10” and weighed 129 lbs,” he blogged years later. “I had a great body … for a girl.” But basic training made him stronger and tougher; he pushed to get the top scores on physical-fitness tests; he took up skydiving, snorkeling, hiking. If you plan to specialize in a field in which a single mistake can cost you and your comrades their lives, it helps to have high standards. “Ever since I was new to the Army, I made it my personal goal to do as well as I can,” he recalled. “I thought of it as kind of a representation of my being, my honor, who I was.”

The Army trained him to take apart bombs. He and his team were among the first on the scene of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, combing the ruins for any other devices, and he traveled occasionally to help the Secret Service protect then First Lady Hillary Clinton. He met Leslie in 1994 during a break in her college psychology studies. They started dating, sometimes across continents–he did two tours in Bosnia. During a Stateside break in January 2001, he married Leslie in Rancho Santa Fe, Calif. They had three children in four years, and McCaddon, by then an active-duty officer, moved with his family to Vilseck, Germany, where he helped run an Army dental office.

He was still ambitious–two of Leslie’s pregnancies had been difficult, so he decided to apply to the military’s medical school and specialize in obstetrics. But then, while he was back in Washington for his interview, came a living nightmare: his oldest son, who was 3, was diagnosed with leukemia. Just before entering med school, McCaddon prepared for his son’s chemotherapy by shaving his head in solidarity so the little boy wouldn’t feel so strange. McCaddon may not have been a warrior, but he was a fighter. “I became known as a hard-charger,” he wrote. “I was given difficult tasks, and moved through the ranks quickly.” He pushed people who didn’t give 100%; he pushed himself.

The Apache Pilot

Ian Morrison was born at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, son of a Marine. An honor student at Thomas McKean High School in Wilmington, Del., he sang in the chorus, ran cross-country and was a co-captain of the swimming team before heading to West Point. He had a wicked sense of humor and a sweet soul; he met Rebecca on a Christian singles website in 2006 and spent three months charming her over the phone. One night he gave her his credit-card information. “Buy me a ticket, because I’m going to come see you,” he told her before flying to Houston. “The minute I picked him up,” she recalls, “we later said we both knew it was the real deal.” He proposed at West Point when she flew in for his graduation.

Morrison spent the next two years at Fort Rucker in Alabama, learning to fly the two-seat, 165-m.p.h. Apache helicopter, the Army’s most lethal aircraft. He and his roommate, fellow West Pointer Sean McBride, divided their time among training, Walmart, church, Seinfeld and video games, fueled by macaroni and cheese with chopped-up hot dogs. Morrison and Rebecca were married two days after Christmas 2008 near Dallas. The Army assigned him to an aviation unit at Fort Hood, so they bought a three-bedroom house on an acre of land just outside the town of Copperas Cove, Texas. They supported six African children through World Vision and were planning to have some kids of their own. “We had named our kids,” Rebecca says.

Morrison was surprised when the Army ordered him to Iraq on short notice late in 2010. Like all young Army officers, he saluted and began packing.

Triggers and Traps

One theory of suicide holds that people who feel useful, who feel as if they belong and serve a larger cause, are less likely to kill themselves. That would explain why active-duty troops historically had lower suicide rates than civilians. But now experts who study the patterns wonder whether prolonged service during wartime may weaken that protective function.

Service members who have bonded with their units, sharing important duties, can have trouble once they are at a post back home, away from the routines and rituals that arise in a close-knit company. The isolation often increases once troops leave active duty or National Guardsmen and reservists return to their parallel lives. The military frequently cites relationship issues as a predecessor to suicides; that irritates survivors to no end. “I’m not as quick to blame the Army as the Army is to blame me,” Leslie McCaddon says. “The message I get from the Army is that our marital problems caused Mike to kill himself. But they never ask why there were marriage problems to begin with.”

As McCaddon made his way through med school in Maryland, he encountered ghosts from his past. He was reaching the age at which his biological father had died by suicide, which statistically increased his own risk. But he wasn’t scared by it, Leslie says; he told associates about it. What did bother him was that he was gaining weight, the physical-training tests were getting harder for him, and the course work was challenging to juggle with a young family. He hid the strain, “but inside it is killing me,” he blogged. He called Leslie a hero “for not kicking me out of the house on the several times I’ve given her reason.” And he told her he sometimes thought of suicide.

“But he would tell everyone else that he was fine,” Leslie says. “He was afraid they’d kick him out of medical school if he was really honest about how depressed he was.” McCaddon sought counseling from a retired Army psychiatrist and seemed to be turning a corner in May 2010, when he graduated and got his first choice for a residency, at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu.

“He loved being a soldier,” Leslie said, “and he was going to do everything he could to protect that relationship.”

Leslie had relationships to protect as well. He was increasingly hard on her at home; he was also hard on the kids and on himself. “He was always an amazing father–he loved his children–but he started lashing out at them,” Leslie recalls. “He wasn’t getting enough sleep, and he was under a lot of stress.” Leslie began exploring options but very, very carefully; she had a bomb-disposal problem as well. “When I was reaching out for help, people were saying, Be careful how you phrase this, because it could affect your husband’s career,” she says. “That was terrifying to me. It made me think that by advocating for him I’d be making things worse.”

The Pilot’s Pain

Captain Morrison headed to Iraq in early 2011. Once there, he and Rebecca Skyped nearly every day between his flight assignments. When he took R&R leave in early September, they visited family in Dallas, then San Antonio, and caught concerts by Def Leppard and Heart.

There were no signs of trouble. “He was so mentally stable–he worked out every day, we ate good food, and we always had good communication,” his wife says. “Most people would say he was kind of quiet, but with me he was loud and obnoxious and open.”

Morrison never engaged the enemy in direct combat; still, some 70 missions over Iraq took their toll. His base was routinely mortared. After one mission, he and several other pilots were walking back to their hangar when a rocket shot right past them and almost hit him; he and his comrades ran and dived into a bunker, he told Rebecca once he was safely home. He impressed his commander–“Excellent performance!” his superior raved in a formal review of the man his buddies called Captain Brad Pitt. “Unlimited potential … continue to place in position of greater responsibility.”

It was not the war that turned out to be hard; it was the peace. Morrison returned to Fort Hood late last year and spent his month off with Rebecca riding their horses, attending church and working out. He seemed unnerved by slack time at home. “He said it was really easy to fall into a routine in Iraq–they got up at the exact same time, they ate, they worked out, they flew forever and then they came back, and he’d talk to me, and then they did it all over again,” Rebecca says. “When he came back to Texas, it was really difficult for him to adjust.”

Morrison was due to be reassigned, so he and his wife needed to sell their house, but it just sat on the market. His anxiety grew; he was restless, unable to sleep, and they thought he might be suffering from PTSD. The couple agreed that he should see a doctor. Military wives, especially those studying mental health, have heard the stories, know the risks, learn the questions: Is their spouse drinking more, driving recklessly, withdrawing from friends, feeling trapped? Be direct, they are told. “I looked him right in the face and asked, ‘Do you feel like you want to hurt or kill yourself?'” Rebecca recalls. “He looked me right in the face and said, ‘Absolutely not–no way–I don’t feel like that at all. All I want to do is figure out how to stop this anxiety.'”

The Stigma

When troops return from deployment, they are required to do self-assessments of their experience: Did they see people killed during their tour? Did they feel they had been at risk of dying? Were they interested in getting counseling for stress or alcohol use or other issues? But a 2008 study found that when soldiers answer questions anonymously, they are two to four times as likely to report depression or suicidal thoughts. Independent investigations have turned up reports of soldiers being told by commanders to airbrush their answers or else risk their careers. A report by the Center for a New American Security cited commanders who refuse to grant a military burial after a suicide for fear that doing so would “endorse or glamorize” it.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and all the services have launched resiliency-training programs and emergency hotlines, offering slogans like “Never leave a Marine behind” and “Never let your buddy fight alone” that try to speak the language of the unit. Last year the Pentagon released a video game meant to allow soldiers to explore the causes and symptoms of PTSD from the privacy of their homes. “We want people to feel like they are encouraged to get help,” says Jackie Garrick, who runs the new Defense Suicide Prevention Office. “There are a myriad of ways you can access help and support if you need it.”

But faith in that commitment was shaken this year when Army Major General Dana Pittard, commander of the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas, complained on his official blog that he was “personally fed up” with “absolutely selfish” troops who kill themselves, leaving him and others to “clean up their mess. Be an adult, act like an adult, and deal with your real-life problems like the rest of us,” he continued. He later said he wanted to “retract” what he called his “hurtful statement,” but he didn’t apologize for what he said. Many soldiers and family members believe Pittard’s attitude is salted throughout the U.S. military.

Just a Lovers’ Quarrel

In August 2010, Leslie went to McCaddon’s commanding officer at the hospital. She didn’t tell Michael. “It was the scariest thing I’ve ever done,” she says. She recalls sitting in the commander’s office, haltingly laying out her concerns–McCaddon’s history of depression, his struggle to meet his high standards while doing right by his family. She was hoping that maybe the commander would order him into counseling and defuse the stigma somehow: he’d just be following orders. She watched the officer, a female colonel, detonate before her eyes. “No one at the medical school told me he had a history of depression, of being suicidal,” Leslie recalls her shouting. “I have a right to know this. He’s one of my residents. Why didn’t anyone tell me?” The commander was furious–not at Leslie, exactly, but at finding herself not in command of the facts.

The colonel called several colleagues into the room and then summoned McCaddon as well. Leslie registered the shock and fear on his face when he saw his wife sitting with his bosses. “I was shaking,” she says. “I told him I continued to be concerned that his depression was affecting our family and that I was really concerned for his safety but also for the well-being of our children and myself.”

The commander encouraged McCaddon to get help but wouldn’t order him to do it. He left the room, livid, and Leslie burst into tears. “Honey, don’t worry,” Leslie remembers the commander saying. “My first marriage was a wreck too.”

Can’t you make him get some help? Leslie pleaded again, but the colonel pushed back. McCaddon was doing fine at work, with no signs of a problem. “‘Leslie, I know this is going to be hard to hear, but this just doesn’t sound like an Army issue to me,'” McCaddon’s wife recalls the colonel saying. “‘It sounds like a family issue to me.'” Leslie felt her blood run cold. “No one was going to believe me so long as things were going fine at work.”

McCaddon did try to see an Army psychiatrist, but a month or more could pass without his finding the time. “I’d say, ‘He’s in the Army,'” Leslie recalls telling the doctor, “‘and you make him do everything else, so you should be able to make him go to mental-health counseling.'” But McCaddon was not about to detour from rounds to lie on the couch. He barely ate while on his shift. “Everybody here is under stress,” he stormed at Leslie. “I can’t just walk out for an hour a week–I’m not going to leave them when we’re already short-staffed.”

The marriage was cracking. Back in Massachusetts, Leslie’s mother was not well. Leslie and the kids moved home so she could take care of her. She and Michael talked about divorce.

The Waiting Room

Early on Monday, March 19, Ian Morrison showed up at a Fort Hood health clinic, where he sat waiting in his uniform, with his aviation badge, for three hours. Finally someone saw him. “‘I’m sorry you had to wait all this time,'” Rebecca says he was told. “‘But we can’t see you. We can’t prescribe you anything.'” He had to see the doctor assigned to his unit. When Morrison arrived at the flight surgeon’s office, he told Rebecca, the doctor was upset that Morrison hadn’t shown up at the regular daily sick call a couple of hours earlier.

“He told me this guy was so dismissive and rude to him. ‘You need to follow procedure. You should have been here hours ago,'” Rebecca says. “Ian wanted to tell the doctor he was anxious, depressed and couldn’t sleep, but this guy shut him down.” Morrison acknowledged only his sleeplessness, leading the doctor to give him 10 sleeping pills with orders to return the next week. He’d be grounded for the time being.

But that didn’t seem to affect his mood. Morrison toasted his wife’s success on a big exam that day–she was close to earning her master’s in psychology–by cooking a steak dinner and drawing a bubble bath for her that night. “He was dancing around and playing music and celebrating for me,” she remembers. “He seemed really hopeful.” He took a pill before bed but told Rebecca in the morning that he hadn’t slept.

On Tuesday, March 20, Morrison tried to enroll in an Army sleep study but was told he couldn’t join for a month. “Well, I’ll just keep taking Ambien and then go see the flight surgeon,” he told the woman involved with the study. She asked if he felt like hurting himself. “No, ma’am, you don’t have to worry about me at all,” he said. “I would never do that.” That day, Morrison typed an entry in his journal: “These are the things I know that I can’t change: whether or not the house sells, the state of the economy, and the world … these are things that I know to be true: I’m going to be alive tomorrow, I will continue to breathe and get through this, and God is sovereign over my life.”

Rebecca awoke the next morning to find her husband doing yoga. “I’m self-medicating,” he told her. She knew what that meant. “You couldn’t sleep again, huh?” Rebecca asked.

“No,” Morrison said. “I’m going back to the doctor today.” Given the lack of success with the medication, she told him that was probably a good idea. She left the house, heading for the elementary school on post where she taught second grade.

A System Overwhelmed

The Army reported in January that there was no way to tell how well its suicide-prevention programs were working, but it estimated that without such interventions, the number of suicides could have been four times as high. Since 2009, the Pentagon’s ranks of mental-health professionals have grown by 35%, nearing 10,000. But there is a national shortage of such personnel, which means the Army is competing with the VA and other services–not to mention the civilian world–to hire the people it needs. The Army has only 80% of the psychiatrists and 88% of the social workers and behavioral-health nurses recommended by the VA. Frequent moves from post to post mean that soldiers change therapists often, if they can find one, and mental-health records are not always transferred.

Military mental-health professionals complain that the Army seemed to have put its suicide-prevention efforts on the back burner after Chiarelli, a suicide fighter, left the service in January. “My husband did not want to die,” Rebecca says. “Ian tried to get help–six times in all … Think about all the guys who don’t even try to get help because of the stigma. Ian was so past the stigma, he didn’t care. He just wanted to be healthy.”

The Breaking Point

On March 15, McCaddon gave a medical presentation that got rave reviews. Then he called Massachusetts to speak to his children and sent Leslie that last e-mail. He regretted his failures as a husband, as a father. Don’t tell the children how I died, he begged her. “Know that I love you and my biggest regret in life will always be failing to cherish that, and instead forsaking it.” Leslie read the e-mail in horror. “In the back of my mind, I’m saying to myself, He’s at work–he’s safe,” she recalls. “It never occurred to me that he would do what he did at work.” But she immediately dialed the hospital’s delivery center. She had just received a suicide note from her husband, she told the doctor who answered, and they needed to find him immediately. The hospital staff fanned out.

“They’ve sent people to the roof, the basement, to your house. We’re looking everywhere,” a midwife told Leslie in a call minutes later. As they talked, Leslie suddenly heard people screaming and crying in the background. Then she heard them call a Code Blue. They had found him hanging from a noose in a call room. It had been less than 30 minutes since McCaddon had sent his final e-mail to his wife. Among the voices Leslie thought she recognized was that of McCaddon’s commander, whose words came rushing back. “Does it seem like a family issue to her now?” Leslie remembers thinking. “Because it looks like it happened on her watch.”

It took 15 minutes for the first responders to bring back a heartbeat. By then he had been without oxygen for too long. Leslie flew to Hawaii, and Captain McCaddon was taken off life support late Tuesday, March 20. He was pronounced dead early the next day.

That same day, Wednesday, March 21, Morrison saw a different Army doctor, who in a single 20-minute session diagnosed him with clinical depression. He got prescriptions for an antidepressant and a med to treat anxiety but hadn’t taken either when he called his wife. Rebecca encouraged him to stop by the resiliency center on post to see if he might get some mental-health counseling there. Just before noon, Morrison texted Rebecca, saying he was “Hopeful :)” about it. She wanted to know what they told him. “Will have to come back,” he responded. “Wait is about 2 hrs.” He needed to get back to his office.

Rebecca was still concerned. At about 4 p.m., she urged her husband to call a military hotline that boasted, “Immediate help 24/7–contact a consultant now.” He promised he would. “I said, ‘Perfect. Call them, and I’ll talk to you later,'” Rebecca says. “He was like, ‘O.K., bye.'”

That was the last time she ever talked to him. Their final communication was one more text about 45 minutes later. “STILL on hold,” he wrote to her. Rebecca responded moments later: “Can’t say you’re not trying.”

Morrison called Rebecca at 7:04 p.m., according to her cell phone, but she was leading a group-therapy session and missed it. He didn’t leave a message.

Two and a half hours later, she returned home from her grad-school counseling class. She threw her books down when she entered the living room and called his name. No answer. She saw his boots by the door; the mail was there, so she knew he had to be home. “I walked into our bedroom, and he was lying on the floor with his head on a pillow, on my side of the bed.” He was still in his uniform.

Rebecca stammers, talking softly and slowly through her sobs. “He had shot himself in the neck,” she says. “There was no note or anything. He was fully dressed, and I ran over to him and checked his pulse … and he had no pulse. I just ran out of the house screaming, ‘Call 911!’ and ran to the neighbors.”

The Next Mission

At a suicide-prevention conference in June, Panetta laid down a charge: “We’ve got to do everything we can to make sure that the system itself is working to help soldiers. Not to hide this issue, not to make the wrong judgments about this issue, but to face facts and deal with the problems up front and make sure that we provide the right diagnosis and that we follow up on that kind of diagnosis.”

But what makes preventing suicide so confounding is that even therapy often fails. “Over 50% of the soldiers who committed suicide in the four years that I was vice [chief] had seen a behavioral-health specialist,” recalls Chiarelli. “It was a common thing to hear about someone who had committed suicide who went in to see a behavioral-health specialist and was dead within 24, 48 or 72 hours–and to hear he had a diagnosis that said, ‘This individual is no danger to himself or anyone else.’ That’s when I realized that something’s the matter.”

There’s the horrific human cost, and there is a literal cost as well. The educations of McCaddon and Morrison cost taxpayers a sum approaching $2 million. “If the Army can’t be reached through the emotional side of it–that I lost my husband–well, they lost a $400,000 West Point education and God knows how much in flight school,” Rebecca says. (The Army says Morrison’s pilot training cost $700,000.) Adds Leslie: “They’d invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into this asset. At the very least, why didn’t they protect their asset?”

Captain McCaddon was buried with full military honors on April 3 in Gloucester, Mass. A pair of officers traveled from Hawaii for the service and presented his family with the Army Commendation Medal “for his selfless and excellent service.” Leslie and their three children also received the U.S. flag that had been draped over his casket and three spent shells fired by the honor guard. They visited his grave on Father’s Day to leave flowers, and each child left a card. After two years of chemotherapy, their oldest child’s leukemia remains in remission.

Captain Morrison was buried in central Texas on March 31. The Army had awarded him several decorations, including the Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star. There were military honors graveside, and a bugler played taps. At his widow’s request, there was no rifle volley fired.

Chris Hedges | Totalitarian Systems Always Begin by Rewriting the Law (Truth Out)

Monday, 26 March 2012 09:06By Chris Hedges, Truthdig | Op-Ed

Chris Hedges speaks at Occupy DC, January 9, 2012.

Chris Hedges speaks at Occupy DC, January 9, 2012. (Photo: Shrieking Tree)

I spent four hours in a third-floor conference room at 86 Chambers St. in Manhattan on Friday as I underwent a government deposition. Benjamin H. Torrance, an assistant U.S. attorney, carried out the questioning as part of the government’s effort to decide whether it will challenge my standing as a plaintiff in the lawsuit I have brought with others against President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill.

The NDAA implodes our most cherished constitutional protections. It permits the military to function on U.S. soil as a civilian law enforcement agency. It authorizes the executive branch to order the military to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus for citizens. The law can be used to detain people deemed threats to national security, including dissidents whose rights were once protected under the First Amendment, and hold them until what is termed “the end of the hostilities.” Even the name itself—the Homeland Battlefield Bill—suggests the totalitarian concept that endless war has to be waged within “the homeland” against internal enemies as well as foreign enemies.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest, in a session starting at 9 a.m. Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, will determine if I have standing and if the case can go forward. The attorneys handling my case, Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, will ask, if I am granted standing, for a temporary injunction against the Homeland Battlefield Bill. An injunction would, in effect, nullify the law and set into motion a fierce duel between two very unequal adversaries—on the one hand, the U.S. government and, on the other, myself, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, the Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir and three other activists and journalists. All have joined me as plaintiffs and begun to mobilize resistance to the law through groups such as Stop NDAA.

The deposition was, as these things go, conducted civilly. Afran and Mayer, the attorneys bringing the suit on my behalf, were present. I was asked detailed questions by Torrance about my interpretation of Section 1021 and Section 1022 of the NDAA. I was asked about my relationships and contacts with groups on the U.S. State Department terrorism list. I was asked about my specific conflicts with the U.S. government when I was a foreign correspondent, a period in which I reported from El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Middle East, the Balkans and other places. And I was asked how the NDAA law had impeded my work.

It is in conference rooms like this one, where attorneys speak in the arcane and formal language of legal statutes, that we lose or save our civil liberties. The 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act, the employment of the Espionage Act by the Obama White House against six suspected whistle-blowers and leakers, and the Homeland Battlefield Bill have crippled the work of investigative reporters in every major newsroom in the country. Government sources that once provided information to counter official narratives and lies have largely severed contact with the press. They are acutely aware that there is no longer any legal protection for those who dissent or who expose the crimes of state. The NDAA threw in a new and dangerous component that permits the government not only to silence journalists but imprison them and deny them due process because they “substantially supported” terrorist groups or “associated forces.”

Those of us who reach out to groups opposed to the U.S. in order to explain them to the American public will not be differentiated from terrorists under this law. I know how vicious the government can be when it feels challenged by the press. I covered the wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua from 1983 to 1988. Press members who reported on the massacres and atrocities committed by the Salvadoran military, as well as atrocities committed by the U.S.-backed Contra forces in Nicaragua, were repeatedly denounced by senior officials in the Reagan administration as fellow travelers and supporters of El Salvador’s Farabundo Marti National Liberation (FMLN) rebels or the leftist Sandinista government in Managua, Nicaragua.

The Reagan White House, in one example, set up an internal program to distort information and intimidate and attack those of us in the region who wrote articles that countered the official narrative. The program was called “public diplomacy.”Walter Raymond Jr., a veteran CIA propagandist, ran it. The goal of the program was to manage “perceptions” about the wars in Central America among the public. That management included aggressive efforts to destroy the careers of reporters who were not compliant by branding them as communists or communist sympathizers. If the power to lock us up indefinitely without legal representation had been in the hands of Elliott Abrams or Oliver North or Raymond, he surely would have used it.

Little has changed. On returning not long after 9/11 from a speaking engagement in Italy I was refused entry into the United States by customs officials at the Newark, N.J., airport. I was escorted to a room filled with foreign nationals. I was told to wait. A supervisor came into the room an hour later. He leaned over the shoulder of the official seated at a computer in front of me. He said to this official: “He is on a watch. Tell him he can go.” When I asked for further information I was told no one was authorized to speak to me. I was handed my passport and told to leave the airport.

Glenn Greenwald, the columnist and constitutional lawyer, has done the most detailed analysis of the NDAA bill. He has pointed out that the crucial phrases are “substantially supported” and “associated forces.” These two phrases, he writes, allow the government to expand the definition of terrorism to include groups that were not involved in the 9/11 attacks and may not have existed when those attacks took place.

It is worth reading Sections 1021 and 1022 of the bill. Section 1021 of the NDAA “includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.” Subsection B defines covered persons like this: “(b) Covered Persons—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners.” Section 1022, Subsection C, goes on to declare that covered persons are subject to: “(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” And Section 1022, Subsection A, Item 4, allows the president to waive the requirement of legal evidence in order to condemn a person as an enemy of the state if that is believed to be in the “national security interests of the United States.”

The law can be used to detain individuals who are not members of terrorist organizations but have provided, in the words of the bill, substantial support even to “associated forces.” But what constitutes substantial? What constitutes support? What are these “associated forces”? What is defined under this law as an act of terror? What are the specific activities of those purportedly “engaged in hostilities against the United States”? None of this is answered. And this is why, especially as acts of civil disobedience proliferate, the NDAA law is so terrifying. It can be used by the military to seize and detain citizens and deny legal recourse to anyone who defies the corporate state.

Torrance’s questions to me about incidents that occurred during my reporting were typified by this back and forth, which I recorded:

Torrance: In paragraph eight of your declaration you refer to the type of journalism we have just been discussing, which conveyed opinions, programs and ideas as being brought within the scope of Section 1021’s provision defining a covered people as one who has substantially supported or directly supported the acts and activities of such individuals or organizations and allies of associated forces. Why do you believe journalistic activity could be brought within that statute?

Hedges: Because anytime a journalist writes and reports in a way that challenges the official government narrative they come under fierce attack.

Torrance: What kind of attack do they come under?

Hedges: It is a range. First of all, the propaganda attempts to discredit the reporting. It would be an attempt to discredit the individual reporter. It would be a refusal to intercede when allied governments physically detain and expel the reporter because of reporting that both that allied government and the United States did not want. And any foreign correspondent that is any good through their whole career has endured all of this.

Torrance: Remind me, the phrase you used that you believed would trigger that was “coverage disfavorable to the United States”?

Hedges: I didn’t say that.

Torrance: Remind me of the phrase.

Hedges: I said it was coverage that challenged the official narrative.

Torrance: Have you ever been detained by the United States government?

Hedges: Yes.

Torrance: When and where?

Hedges: The First Gulf War.

Torrance: What were the circumstances of that?

Hedges: I was reporting outside of the pool system.

Torrance: How did that come about that you were detained?

Hedges: I was discovered by military police without an escort.

Torrance: And they took you into custody?

Hedges: Yes.

Torrance: For how long?

Hedges: Not a long time. They seized my press credentials and they called Dhahran, which is where the sort of central operations were, and I was told that within a specified time—and I don’t remember what that time was—I had to report to the authorities in Dhahran.

Torrance: Where is Dhahran?

Hedges: Saudi Arabia.

Torrance: And that was a U.S. military headquarters of some sort?

Hedges: Well, it was the press operations run by the U.S. Army.

Torrance: And what was the asserted basis for detaining you?

Hedges: That I had been reporting without an escort.

Torrance: And was that a violation of some law or regulation that you know of?

Afran: Note, object to form. Laws and regulations are two different things.

Hedges: Not in my view. …

Torrance: Did the people who detained you specify any law or regulation that in their view you violated?

Hedges: Let me preface that by saying that as a foreign correspondent with a valid journalistic visa, which I had, in a country like Saudi Arabia, the United States does not have the authority to detain me or tell me what I can report on. They attempted to do that, but neither I [nor] The New York Times [my employer at the time] recognized their authority.

Torrance: When you obtained that journalistic visa did you agree to any conditions on what you would do or where you would be permitted to go?

Hedges: From the Saudis?

Torrance: The visa was issued by the Saudi government?

Hedges: Of course, I need a visa from the Saudi government to get into Saudi.

Torrance: Did you agree to any such conditions?

Hedges: No. Not with the Saudis.

Torrance: Were there any other journalists of which you were aware who [were] reporting outside of the pool system?

Hedges: Yes.

Torrance: Were they also detained, to your knowledge?

Hedges: Yes.

The politeness of the exchanges, the small courtesies extended when we needed a break, the idle asides that took place during the brief recesses, masked the deadly seriousness of the proceeding. If there is no rolling back of the NDAA law we cease to be a constitutional democracy.

Totalitarian systems always begin by rewriting the law. They make legal what was once illegal. Crimes become patriotic acts. The defense of freedom and truth becomes a crime. Foreign and domestic subjugation merges into the same brutal mechanism. Citizens are colonized. And it is always done in the name of national security. We obey the new laws as we obeyed the old laws, as if there was no difference. And we spend our energy and our lives appealing to a dead system.

Franz Kafka understood the totalitarian misuse of law, the ability by the state to make law serve injustice and yet be held up as the impartial arbiter of good and evil. In his stories “The Trial” and “The Castle” Kafka presents pathetic supplicants before the law who are passed from one doorkeeper, administrator or clerk to the next in an endless and futile quest for justice. In the parable “Before the Law” the supplicant dies before even being permitted to enter the halls of justice. In Kafka’s dystopian vision, the law is the mechanism by which injustice and tyranny are perpetuated. A bureaucratic legal system uses the language of justice to defend injustice. The cowed populations in tyrannies become for Kafka so broken, desperate and passive that they are finally complicit in their own enslavement. The central character in “The Trial,” known as Josef K, offers little resistance at the end of the story when two men arrive to oversee his execution. Josef K. leads them to a quarry where he is expected to kill himself. He cannot. The men do it for him. His last words are: “Like a dog!”

Journalist Chris Hedges on Capitalism’s “Sacrifice Zones”: Communities Destroyed for Profit (Truth Out)

Tuesday, 24 July 2012 09:18

By Bill MoyersMoyers & Company | Interview

 

Camden, New Jersey is one of the poorest cities in the United States. Camden suffers from unemployment, urban decay, poverty, and many other social issues. Much of the city of Camden, New Jersey suffers from urban decay.Camden, New Jersey is one of the poorest cities in the United States. Camden suffers from unemployment, urban decay, poverty, and many other social issues. Much of the city of Camden, New Jersey suffers from urban decay. (Photo: Phillies1fan777)

There are forgotten corners of this country where Americans are trapped in endless cycles of poverty, powerlessness, and despair as a direct result of capitalistic greed. Journalist Chris Hedges calls these places “sacrifice zones,” and joins Bill this week on Moyers & Company to explore how areas like Camden, New Jersey; Immokalee, Florida; and parts of West Virginia suffer while the corporations that plundered them thrive.

These are areas that have been destroyed for quarterly profit. We’re talking about environmentally destroyed, communities destroyed, human beings destroyed, families destroyed,” Hedges tells Bill.

“It’s the willingness on the part of people who seek personal enrichment to destroy other human beings… And because the mechanisms of governance can no longer control them, there is nothing now within the formal mechanisms of power to stop them from creating essentially a corporate oligarchic state.”

The broadcast includes a visit with comics artist and journalist Joe Sacco, who collaborated with Hedges on Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt, an illustrated account of their travels through America’s sacrifice zones. Kirkus Reviews calls it an “unabashedly polemic, angry manifesto that is certain to open eyes, intensify outrage and incite argument about corporate greed.”

A columnist for Truthdig, Hedges also describes the difference between truth and news. “The really great reporters — and I’ve seen them in all sorts of news organizations — are management headaches because they care about truth at the expense of their own career,” Hedges says.

TRANSCRIPT

Exploring parts of America “that have been destroyed for quarterly profit.”

Bill Moyers: Welcome. Here we are, barely halfway through the summer, and Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have stepped up their cage match, each attacking the other, throwing insults and accusations back and forth like folding chairs hurled across the wrestling ring.

Governor Romney pummels away at the economy; President Obama pummels away at Mr. Romney—when he was or wasn’t at his company Bain Capital, his tax returns and his offshore accounts. All the while, as they bob and weave their way through this quadrennial competition, punching wildly, the real story of what’s happening to ordinary people as capitalism runs amok is largely ignored by each of them. But not in this book “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt”—an unusual account of poverty and desolation across contemporary America. It’s a collaboration between graphic artist and journalist Joe Sacco, about whom more later, and my guest on this week’s broadcast, Chris Hedges.

Chris Hedges: All of the true correctives to American democracy came through movements that never achieved formal political power.

Bill Moyers: This is just the latest battle cry from Hedges, who, angry at what he sees in the world, expresses his outrage in thoughtful prose that never fails to inform and provoke. As a correspondent and bureau chief for “The New York Times,” he covered wars in North Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East—leaving the paper after a reprimand for publicly denouncing the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In such books as “War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning,” his weekly column for the website “Truthdig” and freelance articles for a variety of other publications, Chris Hedges has taken his life’s experience covering the brutality of combat and shaped a worldview in which morality and faith, and the importance of truth-telling, dissent and social activism take precedence, even if it means going to jail.

Welcome, Chris Hedges.

Chris Hedges: Thank you.

Bill Moyers: Tell me about Joe Sacco. He was your companion on this trip. And he was your, in effect, coauthor. Although he was sketching instead of writing.

Chris Hedges: I’ve known Joe since the war in Bosnia. We met when he was working on his book, “Gorazde.” And I was not a reader of graphic novels. But I watched him work. And I certainly know a brilliant journalist when I see one. And he is one of the most brilliant journalists I’ve ever met.

He reports it out with such depth and integrity and power, and then he draws it out. And I realized that an extremely important component of this book was making visible these invisible communities, because we don’t see them. They’re shut out. They’re frightening, they’re depressing. And they’re virtually off the radar screen in terms of the commercial media.

Bill Moyers: This is a tough book. It’s not dispatches from Disneyworld. It paints a very stark portrait of poverty, despair, destructive behavior. What makes you think people want to read that sort of thing these days?

Chris Hedges: That wasn’t a question that Joe Sacco and I ever asked. It’s absolutely imperative that we begin to understand what unfettered, unregulated capitalism does, the violence of that system, which is portrayed in all of the places that we visited.

These are sacrifice zones, areas that have been destroyed for quarterly profit. And we’re talking about environmentally destroyed, communities destroyed, human beings destroyed, families destroyed. And because there are no impediments left, these sacrifice zones are just going to spread outward.

Bill Moyers: What do you mean, there are no impediments left?

Chris Hedges: There’s no way to control corporate power. The system has broken down, whether it’s Democrat or Republican. And because of that, we’ve all become commodities. Just as the natural world has become a commodity that is being exploited until it is exhausted, or it collapses.

Bill Moyers: You call them sacrifice zones.

Chris Hedges: Right.

Bill Moyers: Explain what you mean by that.

Chris Hedges: Well, they have the individuals who live within those areas have no power. The political system is bought off, the judicial system is bought off, the law enforcement system services the interests of power, they have been rendered powerless. You see that in the coal fields of Southern West Virginia.

Now here, in terms of national resources is one of the richest areas of the United States. And yet these harbor the poorest pockets of community, the poorest communities in the United States. Because those resources are extracted. And that money is not funneled back into the communities that are sitting on top of, or next to those resources.

Not only that, but they’re extracted in such a way that the communities themselves are destroyed quite literally because you have not only terrible problems with erosion, as they cause when they do the mountaintop removal, they’ll use these gigantic bulldozers to push off all the trees and then burn them.

And when we flew over the Appalachians, and it’s a terrifying experience, because you realize only then do you realize how vast the devastation is. Just as when we were both in the war in Bosnia, you couldn’t grasp the destruction of ethnic cleansing until you actually flew over Bosnia, and village after village after village had been razed and destroyed.

And the same was true in the Appalachian Mountains. And these people are poisoned. The water is poisoned, it smells, the soil is poisoned. And the people who are making tremendous profits from this don’t even live in West Virginia–

Bill Moyers: You said something like, “While the laws are West Virginia are written by the coal companies, 95 percent of those coal companies–”

Chris Hedges: Right.

Bill Moyers: “–are not in West Virginia.”

Chris Hedges: That’s right. They no longer want to dig down for the coal, and so they’re blowing the top 400 feet off of mountains poisoning the air, poisoning the soil, poisoning the water.

They use some of the largest machines on earth. These draglines, 25-stories tall that are very efficient in terms of ripping out coal seams. But by the time they left, there’s just a wasteland. Nothing grows. Some of the richest soil, some of the purest water, and these are the headwaters for much of the East Coast, You are rendering the area moonscape. It becomes inhabitable. And you’re destroying you know, these are the lungs of the Eastern seaboard. It’s all destroyed and it’s not coming back.

And that violence is visited on these communities. And you see it played out. I mean, Camden, New Jersey, which is the poorest city per capita in the United States and always, the one or two in terms of the most dangerous, it’s a dead city. There’s nothing left. There is no employment. Whole blocks are abandoned. The only thing functioning are open-air drug markets, of which there are about a hundred.

And you’re talking third or fourth generation of people trapped in these internal colonies. They can’t get out, they can’t get credit. And what that does to your dignity, your self-esteem, your sense of self-worth.

BILL MOYERS I was struck by your saying Camden is “beset with the corruption and brutal police repression reminiscent of the despotic regimes that you covered as a correspondent for the New York Times in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.” You describe a city where the per capital income is $ll,967. Large swaths of the city, as Joe Sacco Shows us, are abandoned, windowless brick factories, forlorn warehouses.

Chris Hedges: At one point in the 50s, it was a huge shipyard that employed 36,000 people. Campbell’s Soup was made there, RCA used to be there. But there were a variety of businesses it attracted in that great migration a lot of unskilled labor from the South, as well as immigrants from New York

Because without an education, it was a place that you could find a job. It was unionized, of course, so people had adequate wages and some protection. And then it just– everything went down. With the flight of manufacturing overseas.

It’s all gone. Nothing remains. And that’s why it’s such a stark example of what we’ve done to ourselves, without realizing that the manufacturing base of any country is absolutely vital to its health. Not only in terms of its economic, but in terms of its, you know, the cohesion of a society because it gives employment.

Bill Moyers: But give me a thumbnail sketch of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Chris Hedges: Well, Pine Ridge is where it began, Western exploitation. And it was the railroad companies that did it. They wanted the land, they took the land, the government gave them the land. It either gave it to them or sold it to them very cheaply. They slaughtered the buffalo herds, they broke these people. Forcing a people that had not been part of a wage economy to become part of a wage economy, upending the traditional values.

And it really is about the maximization of profit, it really is about the commodification of everything, including human beings. And this was certainly true in the western wars.

And it’s appalling. You know, the average life expectancy for a male in Pine Ridge is 48. That is the lowest in the Western Hemisphere outside of Haiti. At any one time, 60 percent of the dwellings do not have electricity or water.

Bill Moyers: You write of one tiny village, tiny village, with four liquor stores. And that dispense the equivalent of 13,500–

Chris Hedges: Right.

Bill Moyers: –cans of beer a day. And with devastating results.

Chris Hedges: Yes. And they start young and some estimates run that, you know, alcoholism is as high as 80 percent. This contributes, of course, to early death. That’s in Whiteclay, Nebraska. There is no liquor that is legally sold on the reservation, itself. But Whiteclay is about two miles from Pine Ridge. And that’s where people go. They call it “going south.” And that’s all they do, is sell liquor.

That’s true everywhere. You build a kind of dependency which destroys self-efficiency. I mean, that’s what the old Indian agencies were set up to do. You take away the livelihood, you take away the buffalo herds, you make it impossible to sustain yourself, and then you have lines of people waiting for lard, flour, and you know, whisky.

And that has been true in West Virginia. That’s certainly true in Camden. And it is a form of disempowerment. It is a form of keeping people essentially, at a subsistence level, and yet dependent on the very structures of power that are destroying them.

Bill Moyers: One of the most forlorn portraits is in your description of Immokalee, Florida. You describe Immokalee as a town filled with desperately poor single men.

Chris Hedges: Most of them have come across the border illegally. Come up from Central America and Mexico, especially after the passage of NAFTA. Because this destroyed subsistence farms in Mexico, the big agro businesses were able to flood the Mexican market with cheap corn. Estimates run as high as three million farmers were bankrupt, and where did they go? They crossed the border into the United States and in desperate search for work. They were lured into the produce fields. And they send what money they can, usually about $100 a month home to support their wives and children.

Bill Moyers: And they make $11,000, $12,000–

Chris Hedges: At best.

Chris Hedges: It’s brutal work, physically.

Bill Moyers: Yeah.

Chris Hedges: But they’re also exposed to all sorts of chemicals and pesticides. And it’s very hard to show the effects because as these workers age, you know, they’re bent over eight, ten hours a day. So they have tremendous back problems. And by the time they’re in their thirties, the crew leaders, they’ll actually line up in these big parking lots at about 4:00 in the morning, the busses will come.

They just won’t pick the older men. And so they become destitute. And they go back home physically broken. And it’s hard to tell, you know, how poisoned they’ve become, because they’re hard to trace. But clearly that is a big issue. They talk about rashes, respiratory, you know, not being able to breathe, coughing, it’s really, you know, a frightening window into the primacy of profit over human dignity and human life.

Bill Moyers: Fit this all together for me. What does the suffering of the Native American on the Pine Ridge Reservation have to do with the unemployed coal miner in West Virginia have to do with the inner-city African American in Camden have to do with the single man working for minimum wage or less in Immokalee, Florida? What ties that all together?

Chris Hedges: Greed. It’s greed over human life. And it’s the willingness on the part of people who seek personal enrichment to destroy other human beings. That’s a common thread. We, in that biblical term, we forgot our neighbor. And because we forgot our neighbor in Pine Ridge, because we forgot our neighbor in Camden, in Southern West Virginia, in the produce fields, these forces have now turned on us. They went first, and we’re next. And that’s–

Bill Moyers: What do you mean we’re next?

Chris Hedges: Well, the–

Bill Moyers: We being—

Chris Hedges: Two-thirds of this country. We are rapidly replicating that totalitarian vision of George Orwell in “1984.” We have an inner sanctum, inner party of 2 percent or 3 percent, an outer party of corporate managers, of 12 percent, and the rest of us are proles. I mean–

Bill Moyers: Proles being?

Chris Hedges: Being an underclass that is hanging on by their fingertips. And this is already very far advanced. I mean, numbers, I mean, 47 million Americans depending on food stamps, six million exclusively on food stamps, one million people a year going filing for personal bankruptcy because they can’t pay their medical bills, six million people pushed out of their houses.

Long-term unemployment or underemployment– you know, probably being 17 to 20 percent. This is an estimate by “The L.A. Times” rather than the official nine percent. I mean, the average worker at Wal-Mart works 28 hours a week, but their wages put them below the poverty line. Which is why when you work at Wal-Mart, they’ll give you applications for food stamps, so we can help as a government subsidize the family fortune of the Walton family.

It’s, you know these corporations know only one word, and that’s more. And because the mechanisms of governance can no longer control them, there is nothing now within the formal mechanisms of power to stop them from the creating, essentially, a corporate oligarchic state

Bill Moyers: And you say, though, we are accomplices in our own demise. Explain that paradox. That corporations are causing this, but we are cooperating with them.

Chris Hedges: This sort of notion that the corporate value of greed is good. I mean, these deformed values have sort of seeped down within the society at large. And they’re corporate values, they’re not American values.

I mean, American values were effectively destroyed by Madison Avenue when, after world war one, it began to instill consumption as a kind of inner compulsion. But old values of thrift, of self-effacement, or hard work were replaced with this cult of the “self”, this hedonism.

And in that sense, you know, we have become complicit, because we’ve accepted this as a kind of natural law. And the acceptance of this kind of behavior, and even the celebration of it is going to ultimately trigger our demise. Not only as a culture, not only as a country, but finally as a species that exists, you know, on planet Earth.

Bill Moyers: As we came here, I pulled an article published in “Nature” magazine by a group of rather accomplished and credible scientists who have done all the technical studies they need to do, who come to the conclusion that our planet’s ecosystems are careening towards an imminent, irreversible collapse. Once these things happen, planet’s ecosystems as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye. Connect that to what you’ve been reporting.

Chris Hedges: Well, because the exploitation of human beings is always accompanied by the exploitation of natural resources, without any thought given to sustainability. I mean, the amount of chemicals and pesticides that are used on the produce in Florida is just terrifying.

And that, you know, migrates from those fields directly to the shelves of our supermarkets and we’re consuming it. And corporations have the kind of political clout that they can prevent any kind of investigation or control or regulation of this. And it’s, again, it’s all for short-term profit at long-term expense.

So the, you know, the very forces that we document in this book are the same forces that are responsible for destroying the ecosystem itself. We are watching these corporate forces, which are supranational. They have no loyalty to the nation state at all, reconfigure the global economy into a form of neo-feudalism. We are rapidly becoming an oligarchic state with an incredibly wealthy class of overlords.

Sheldon Wolin writes about this in “Democracy Incorporated” into what I would call, what he calls inverted totalitarianism, whereby it’s not classical totalitarianism, it doesn’t find its expression through a demagogue or a charismatic leader, but through the anonymity of the corporate state that purports to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution, the iconography and language of American patriotism, and yet internally have seized all of the levers of power. This is what it means when lobbyists write all of our legislation, or when they stack the Supreme Court with people who serve the interests of corporations. And it’s to render the citizen impotent.

Bill Moyers: And what is it, you think, led us to this point of this mind-boggling inequality, mind-boggling consumption, which obviously many of us like, or we wouldn’t be participating? And the grip that money has on politics? What are the forces that got us to this?

Chris Hedges: I think it began after World War I. You know, Dwight McDonald writes about how after World War I, American society became enveloped in what he called the psychosis of permanent war, where in the name of anti-Communism, we could effectively banish anyone within the society who questioned power in a serious kind of way.

And of course, we destroyed populist and radical movements, which have always broadened democracy within American society, it’s something Howard Zinn wrote quite powerfully about in “A People’s History of the United States.” It has been a long struggle, whether it’s the abolitionist movement that fought slavery, whether it’s the suffragists for women’s rights, the labor movement, or the civil rights movement. And these forces have the ability to essentially destroy those movements, including labor unions, which made the middle class possible in this country. And have rendered us powerless. And–

Bill Moyers: Except for the power of the pen. You keep writing, you keep speaking, you keep agitating.

Chris Hedges: I do, but, you know, things aren’t getting better. And I think, you know, like you, I come out of the seminary, and I look less on my ability to effect change and understand it more as a kind of moral responsibility to resist these forces. Which I think in theological terms are forces of death. And to fight to protect, preserve, and nurture life.

But you know, as my friend, Father Daniel Berrigan says, you know, “We’re called to do the good, or at least the good insofar as we can determine it. And then we have to let it go.” Faith is the belief that it goes somewhere.

Bill Moyers: So let’s talk about you. You’ve been showing up in the news as well as well as just reporting the news, you took part in that mock trial down at Goldman Sachs.

Chris Hedges: Goldman Sachs is an institution that worships death, the forces of Thanatos, of greed, of exploitation, of destruction.

Bill Moyers: And I still remember the picture of you and the others sitting down, locking arms, and blocking the interests of the company. What was that about?

Chris Hedges: That was personal for me. Goldman Sachs runs one of the largest commodities index in the world. And I’ve spent 20 years in places like Africa, and I know what happens when wheat prices increase by 100 percent. Children starve. And I knew I was going to get arrested because, you know, I was, I covered the famine in Sudan and was in these huge U.N. tents and feeding stations trying to save.

And you know, the people who die in famines were usually elderly and children. The place was, I mean, everyone had tuberculosis. I have scars in my lungs from tuberculosis, which I successfully fought off. And those are sort of the whispers of the dead. All those children and others who couldn’t didn’t have the ability to go in front of a place like Goldman Sachs and condemn them.

Bill Moyers: But surely those people, as you were arrested, there were people working for Goldman Sachs looking down from the windows–

Chris Hedges: They were taking pictures–

Bill Moyers: Taking pictures, laughing. Surely you don’t think they would wish that outcome in Africa or anywhere else, right?

Chris Hedges: Well, it’s moral fragmentation. I mean, they blind themselves to what they do all day long, and they define themselves as good human beings by other criteria, because they’re a good father or a good husband or because they go to church. But it is that human trait to engage in what I would have to describe as a system of evil. And yet, look at it as just a job.

Bill Moyers: But are we all then therefore, and I come back to this, aren’t we all part of this system that in some way produces Pine Ridge, Immokalee, the coal fields, the inner-cities, and the starving children in Africa? Aren’t we all who have jobs and participate in the culture and are in the economic game, aren’t we all, in a way, as complicit as those people looking down on you from those windows at Goldman Sachs?

Chris Hedges: No. Because you know, the people who actually run the commodities index are very tiny, elite, and extremely wealthy group. And they’re highly compensated. These people make hundreds of thousands, often millions of dollars a year. And most of us don’t make that. And that personal enrichment, I think, is a powerful inducement to ignore their complicity in what is clearly a crime against other human beings.

Bill Moyers: But do you think what you did made any difference? Goldman Sachs hasn’t changed.

Chris Hedges: Well, that doesn’t matter. I did what I had to do. I did what I believed I should’ve done. And faith is a belief that it does make a difference, even if all of the empirical signs around you point otherwise. I think that fundamentally is what faith is about. And I’m not a very good Christian anymore. But I retain enough of my Christian heritage and my seminary training to still believe that.

Bill Moyers: What are you?

Chris Hedges: A, you know, a sinner.

Bill Moyers: Welcome to the clan.

Chris Hedges: You know, a doubter.

Bill Moyers: But you’re driven by something. I mean, I talked to you when you wrote your first and remarkable book “War is the Force that Gives Us Meaning.” I haven’t seen anyone as affected in their life after their experience as a journalist as you had been. I mean, there have been others, I just don’t know them. But somehow what you’re doing today goes back to what you saw and did and felt and experienced in all those years you were overseas and on the frontiers of trouble.

Chris Hedges: Well, because when you spend that long on the outer reaches of empire, you understand the cruelty of empire, what Conrad calls, “The horror, the horror.” And the lies that we tell ourselves about what is done in our name. Whether that’s in Gaza, whether that’s in Iraq, whether that’s in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, El Salvador, I mean, there’s a long list.

And when you come back from the outer reaches of empire, you are, and I think, you know, many combat veterans feel this who come back, you’re forever alienated. And you to speak a very unpleasant truth about who we are, a truth that most people don’t want to hear. And yet I think to hold that truth in and to remain silent and not to speak that truth destroys you.

That it’s better to get up and speak it even as you correctly point out, you know that Goldman Sachs, you know, everyone at Goldman Sachs gets up the next morning and does it. I mean, this was also true as a war correspondent. I mean, the Serbs would kill.

They’d block all the roads into the village, we’d walk in with our satellite phones, we’d file it, we never believe they weren’t going to do it again the next day. But somehow not to chronicle it, not to take the risks to report it, was to be complicit in that killing. And I think that same kind of thought goes into what’s happening here.

Bill Moyers: But do you think taking sides marginalizes your journalism? I mean, when you were being arrested, and some businessman was quoted in the paper passing by and looking at those of you being carried away and said, “Bunch of idiots.” He needs to hear what you, read what you say. Do you think he will once he knows you’ve taken sides?

Chris Hedges: Well, I think that in life we always have to take sides.

Bill Moyers: Do journalists always have to take sides?

Chris Hedges: Yes. Journalists always do take sides. You know, you’ve been a journalist a long time. The idea that there’s something objective and impartial is just a lie. We sell it. But I can take the same set of facts– I was a newspaper reporter for a long time, and I can spin that story one way or another. We manipulate facts. That’s what we do. And I think that the really great journalists–

Bill Moyers: Not necessarily to deceive though. Some do, I know, but–

Chris Hedges: Right, but we do.

Bill Moyers: We choose the facts we want to organize–

Chris Hedges: Of course, it’s selective. And it’s what facts we choose, how we place, where we put the quotes. And I think the really great journalists, like the great preachers, care fundamentally about truth. And truth and news are not the same thing.

And the really great reporters, and I’ve seen them, you know, in all sorts of news organizations, are management headaches because they care about truth at the expense of their own career.

Bill Moyers: What do you mean truth as opposed to news?

Chris Hedges: Well, let’s take the Israel occupation of Gaza. You know, if I had a dinner with any Middle East correspondent who covered Gaza, none of us would have any disagreements about the Israeli behavior in Gaza, which is a collective war crime. And yet to get up and write it and say it within American society is not a career enhancer.

Because there’s a powerful Israeli lobby, and it’s a lobby that I don’t think represents Israel, it represents the right wing of Israel. And you know it. But, the great reporters don’t care. And they’re there.

But you know, large institutions like “The New York Times” attract huge numbers of careerists like any other large institutions, the Church of course, being no exception. And those are the people who are willing to take moral shortcuts to promote themselves within that institution.

And when somebody becomes a headache, even if they may agree with them, even if they may know that they are speaking a truth, and it puts their career in jeopardy– they will push them out or silence them.

So I think that one can take sides, and Orwell becomes the kind of model for this. But one can never not tell the truth. And I’ve often written stories that are not particularly flattering. And there’s much in this book about people in Pine Ridge or Camden, you know, that is not flattering. I mean, we’re interviewing people that are drug addicts and this kind of stuff. And–

Bill Moyers: Drug dealers–

Chris Hedges: –prostitutes and–

Bill Moyers: Yeah, drug dealers–

Chris Hedges: Yeah.

Bill Moyers: –prostitutes.

Chris Hedges: So we’re not, you know, the lie of omission is still a lie. But I don’t think any foreign correspondent who covers war, whether it was in Bosnia or whether it was in Sarajevo can be indifferent to the tremendous human suffering before them and not want that human suffering to stop.

Bill Moyers: But there is a price, as you have said, to be paid for stepping outside of the system that enabled your name and reputation and becoming a critic of that system. I mean, what price do you think you’ve paid?

Chris Hedges: I don’t think I paid a price, I think I would’ve paid a price for staying in. I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself. You know, I was pushed out of “The New York Times” because I was publicly denouncing the invasion of Iraq. And again, it comes down to that necessity to speak a truth, or at least the truth as far as you can discern it.

I’ve spent months of my life in Iraq. I knew the instrument of war. I understood in all the ways that this was going be a disaster– including upsetting the power balance in the Middle East. It’s one of the great strategic blunders of the United States, it’s empowered Iran. And to remain silent would’ve been the price. Was it good for my career? Well, of course not.

But my career was never the point. I didn’t drive down Mount Igman into Sarajevo when it was being hit with 2,000 shells a day because it was good for my career. I went there because what was happening was a crime against humanity. And as a reporter, I wanted to be there to chronicle it.

Bill Moyers: Well, you should. But, so you don’t think journalism is futile?

Chris Hedges: I think journalism is essential. I think it’s essential. And we’re watching its destruction. You know, journalism, the power of journalism is that it is rooted in verifiable fact. You go out as a reporter, you seek to find out what is factually correct. You crosscheck it with other sources. It’s sent to an editor. It’s fact-checked, you put it out. That’s all vanishing.

That’s what we’re really losing with journalism. Yes, you know, commercial journalism, there were things they wouldn’t write about. You know, as Schanberg says, “The power of great newspapers like “The Times” is that at least it’s stopped things from getting worse.” I think that’s right.

Bill Moyers: But can it make things better? I mean, do you think you can accomplish more as a dissenter, and I look up on you now, when I ask you what’s your faith, I think your faith is in dissent, if I may say so. It’s in “This far and no further.” But do you think you can accomplish as much as a dissenter than as a journalist?

Chris Hedges: Yeah, it’s not a question that I’ve asked. Because the question is, “What do you have to do?” I certainly knew after 15 years at “The New York Times” that running around on national television shows denouncing the war in Iraq was, as a news reporter, tantamount to career suicide. I mean, I was aware of that.

And yet, you know, as Paul Tillich writes about, you know, “Institutions are always inherently demonic, including the Church.” And you cannot finally serve the interests of those institutions. That for those who seek the moral life, there will always come a time in which they have to defy even institutions they care about if they are able to retain that moral core. And in essence, what, you know, “The New York Times,” or other institutions were asking is that I muzzle myself.

Bill Moyers: But all institutions do that, don’t they?

Chris Hedges: All institutions do.

Bill Moyers: Intuitively or explicitly.

Chris Hedges: That’s right. And I think for those of us who care about speaking, you know, the truth, you know, or if you want to call it dissent, we are going to have to accept that at one day, there’s going probably mean a clash with the very institutions that have nurtured and supported us. And I have been nurtured and supported by these institutions.

Bill Moyers: But your columns, your essays, your recent book, this book, contained repeated calls for uprisings, for civil disobedience. You even say in here, quote, “Revolt is all we have. It is our only hope. It is our only hope.” Unpack that from our viewers who are sitting there thinking, “What is he asking me to do? What does he mean by revolt? What’s he talking about?”

Chris Hedges: Nonviolence civil disobedience. And accepting the fact that engaging in that process will mean arrest. I’ve lived in societies that are rent and torn by violence, and I don’t want us to go there. And I think that we don’t have a lot of time left. And that for those of us who care about veering off into another course, a course that’s rational and sane and makes possible the perpetuation of not only the human species but the planet itself, we have to take this kind of radical action. And if we don’t, then as things disintegrate and as the paralysis within the centers of power become more and more apparent, then we will fuel very frightening extremes.

You know, again, which I saw in places like Central America or Bosnia. And I look at this as many ways, a kind of, a preventive action. A way to respond peacefully. A way to respond, in a Democratic fashion, to the problems in front of us before it’s too late.

Bill Moyers: Bear with me as I explore this, ‘cause there’s a paradox at two levels. One at a conceptual level, and the other at a practical level. You write in here, “Either you join the revolt or you stand on the wrong side of history. You either obstruct through civil disobedience, or become the passive enabler of a monstrous evil.” But in an early book, “Death of the Liberal Class,” which I think is one of your best, you wrote that, “The fantasy of widespread popular revolts and mass movements breaking the hegemony of the corporate state is just that, a fantasy.”

Chris Hedges: I wrote that before Occupy. And I was writing out of a kind of belief that this was what was absolutely necessary and yet I saw no signs within the wider society that was happening. And then suddenly, on September 17th, Zuccotti Park appears. And mostly fueled by the young. And I was writing out of a present reality. And I didn’t see Zuccotti coming. I was writing out of a kind of despair, for all of the reasons that I said.

Bill Moyers: Why did you take hope from that? Because after you’d been down there? You subsequently write that “By the end, even the most dedicated of the Occupiers in Zuccotti Park burned out.”

Chris Hedges: Yeah.

Bill Moyers: “They lost control of the park. The arrival in cold weather of individual tents, along with the numerous street people with mental impairment and addictions,” that you’re nothing if not honest in what you write, even about those people you support, “tore apart the community. Drug use as well as assaults and altercations became common.” So how is that square with what you said earlier that the Occupy Movement gave us a blueprint for how to fight back?

Chris Hedges: Because this is the trajectory of all movements. You know, it’s not a linear progression upwards. And the civil rights movement is a perfect example of that. All sorts of failures, whether it’s in Albany, Mississippi or anywhere else. You know, there were all sorts of moments within the civil rights movement where King wasn’t even sure he was going to be able to hold it together. And what happened in Zuccotti is like what happened in 1765 when they rose up against the Stamp Act.

That became the kind of dress rehearsal for the rebellion of 1775, 1776, 1905. The uprising in Russia became again the kind of dress rehearsal. These movements, this process, it takes a very long time. I think the Occupy was movement and I was there.

I mean, I certainly understand why it imploded and its many faults and how at that size, consensus doesn’t work, everything else. And yet it triggered something. It triggered a kind of understanding of systems of power. It, I think, gave people a sense of their own personal power. Once we step out into a group and articulate these injustices and these grievances to a wider public, and of course they resonated with a mainstream. I don’t think it’s over. I don’t know how it’s going to mutate and change, one never knows. But, I think that it’s imperative that we keep that narrative alive by being out there because things are not getting better.

The state is not responding in a rational way to what’s happening. If they really wanted to break the back of the opposition movement, rather than sort of eradicating the 18 encampments, they would’ve gone back and looked at Roosevelt. There would’ve been forgiveness of all student debt, $1 trillion, there would’ve been a massive jobs program targeted at those under the age of 25, and there would’ve been a moratorium on more closures and bank repossessions of homes.

That would’ve been a rational response. Instead, the state has decided to speak exclusively in the language of force and violence to try and crush this movement while people continue this dissent.

Bill Moyers: In one of your earlier books, you wrote that, quote, “We stand on the verge of one of the bleakest periods in human history, when the bright lights of civilization blink out, and we will descend for decades, if not centuries, into barbarity.” Do you really think that’s ahead?

Chris Hedges: If there’s not a radical change in the way we relate to the ecosystem that sustains life, yes. And I see, if you ask me to put my money down, I see nothing that indicates that we’re preparing to make that change.

Bill Moyers: But here’s another paradox then, you present us with a lot of paradoxes. You just– you and your wife a year and a half ago had your fourth child. How can you introduce another life into so forlorn a future?

Chris Hedges: That’s not an easy question to answer. I look at my youngest son, and his favorite book is “Out of the Blue,” which are pictures of narwhales and porpoises and dolphins. And I think, “It is most probable that within your lifetime, every single one of those sea creatures will be dead.” And in so many ways, I feel that I have to fight for them.

That even if I fail, they’ll say, “You know, at least my dad tried.” We’ve deeply betrayed this next generation on so many levels. And I can’t argue finally, you know, given the empirical facts in front of us that hope is rational. And I retreat, like so many people in my book, into faith. And a belief that resistance and fighting for life is meaningful even if all of the outward signs around us deny that possibility.

Bill Moyers: That faith in human beings?

Chris Hedges: Faith in that fighting for the sanctity of life is always worth it. Because you know, if we don’t fight, then we are finished. Then we signed our own death sentence. And Camus writes about this in “The Rebel,” that I think resistance becomes a kind of way of protecting our own worth as an individual, our own dignity, our own self-respect. And I think resistance does always leave open the possibility of change. And if we don’t resist, then we’ve essentially extinguished that hope.

Bill Moyers: H. L. Mencken, the celebrated iconoclast of the early part of the last century once wrote, “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is more likely one who likes his country more than the rest of us and is those more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debouched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime, he is a good citizen, driven to despair.” Is that you?

Chris Hedges: Yeah–

Bill Moyers: A good citizen driven to despair?

Chris Hedges: Yes. And a good citizen driven to despair who will not remain apathetic and passive. And, you know, in every single place that we went to, Camden, West Virginia, Pine Ridge, we found these utterly magnificent human beings. I mean, this woman Lolly in Camden, African American woman, who you know, raised her own children. And I think by the time she was done, 19 others.

Her fiancé was shot and killed, one of her little seven-year-old daughters died of an asthma attack because they didn’t have the right medicine. And I said, “Lolly, how do you do it?” And she said, “I never ask why.” And when you spend time in the presence of people like that, and they were everywhere you know, they understood what they were up against.

It is deeply empowering. Because not to resist, not to fight back is on a very personal level to betray these people. And when you build relationships, as over the two years Joe and I did, with figures like that, it really, you know, almost comes down to something that simplistic. You can’t betray Lolly. You can’t betray any of these great figures who’ve stood up. Because their fight is our fight. And oftentimes they’ve endured far, far more– well, they have endured far, far more than I have endured or ever will endure.

Bill Moyers: The Book is, “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt.” Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco. Thank you very much Chris for being with me.

Chris Hedges: Thanks Bill.

Bill Moyers: For all his power of expression, sometimes words fail even Chris Hedges, and a picture can say more in a single frame, well-drawn, than paragraphs of explanation. That’s what makes his partnership with graphic artist Joe Sacco on their book, “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt,” so potent and so effective. Joe Sacco has traveled all over the world, using the techniques of the comic book illustrator as a tool of journalism, telling stories with insight and humanity.

Joe Sacco: My name’s Joe Sacco and I’m a comics journalist. Drawing really often provides mood and atmosphere, and writing is that sort of precision. The facts. And you can put those two things together with comics, which I think is what makes the medium very powerful.

When I’m in the field, I meet people who are really in hard situations. I’m not interested in tears. I’m not even interested in sentimentality. But I am interested in telling people’s stories as well as possible who are oppressed or are poor.

Chris and I had already worked on a magazine piece about Camden and we decided we would expand that. You can read about poverty. You can read about despair. Or you can read about resignation. But to see it is really, it’s eye-opening.

I didn’t do that many stories in the book, maybe five or six. They all moved me quite a bit. I think the one that was sort of hit me in this way, because it was so unfamiliar to me was the woman who came out from Guatemala, the one that we call Anna in the story.

Her waiting by the phone after her husband had made the long, arduous trip so the United States. Waiting eight days, knowing he had to cross a desert where many people die. And that sort of story really touched me. Because when we think of migrant workers, we can be so dismissive of them. They’re just working in a fields. Oh, you see them bent over and they’re just doing their job, and you know they’re getting minimum wage. And you sort of feel sorry for them in a sense.

But to get a sense of, and to actually hear an individual story like that, for some reason that just really got to me when I was drawing it.

When I was about seven years old. I started drawing stories. Because I liked forms of self-expression and that was just one I never let go of. I never really drew just for the sake of drawing. There always had to be a story to go with it.

A story can be more true if you just let it be told. It’s very important for me, with my work, not to create these angelic people. You want to show people as nuts and bolts. Those are the people who seem real. With the Michael Red Cloud’s story, a story about his drug dealing days, making big money, partying, having women with him at all times. Now, he wasn’t necessarily pleased with how he’d lived his past life, he wasn’t. But to me, the idea is just to present the complete human being. You know, he’s a real person. I was moved by his story, or I saw the changes that he made through his story. And then you see the hard things in the context of his upbringing, in the context of what was around him, in the context of what he learned from people around him.

You see the commonalities between people who have nothing around them but despair. They are born into a context which simply doesn’t provide them opportunities or even the thought of opportunities. To me, it’s incumbent upon the journalist to go and see for himself or herself what’s actually going on. Journalism to me isn’t like a tennis match, where you’re just watching the ball, and each side is hitting it, hitting it back and forth to each other.

At some point, you have to arrest where the ball is, and that’s where truth is, you know? And like I say, truth doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle. And I’ve always had a problem with journalists who say things like, “Well, I pissed off both sides. I must be doing something right.” That is the laziest sort of phrase I’ve ever heard.

You know, hundreds of stories that still need to be told. I’m interested in sort of answering questions that journalism doesn’t really put its finger on.

To me, it’s very important to remind ourselves of the costs of what is going on in this world. The human costs.

I feel like I wouldn’t be where I need to be for myself if I didn’t look to those things, and I didn’t face them squarely. I just feel that’s who I am, and what I have to do.

DIG DEEPER

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.

Sobre as bombas fabricadas no Brasil, e as tentativas de regulação do comércio mundial de armas (FSP)

Folha de S.Paulo – 25/07/2012 – 03h00

Matias Spektor

Armas do Brasil

Negocia-se esta semana na ONU um Tratado de Comércio de Armas. É a primeira tentativa de regulação do lucrativo mercado global de armamentos.

O texto ora negociado afeta em cheio os interesses do Brasil emergente. Trata-se de uma área em que campeões da indústria estão em franca via de internacionalização. Além das gigantescas Embraer e Odebrecht, existe a Taurus, maior fabricante mundial de armas curtas. Exporta para 44 países, detém 20% do mercado de pistolas nos Estados Unidos e espera um lucro bruto para este ano de R$150 milhões de reais. Ainda entram na lista Avibrás (veículos não-tripulados e foguetes), Mectron (mísseis), Helibrás (helicópteros) e Companhia Brasileira de Cartuchos (munições). A Condor vende 100 produtos de “tecnologias não-letais”.

Essas empresas preferem um tratado minimalista. Não querem explicar publicamente suas vendas nem revelar a lista de clientes. Tampouco enfrentar questionamentos caso suas armas sejam utilizadas para desestabilizar uma região, violar direitos humanos, fomentar o crime transnacional e o terrorismo, ou atrapalhar o combate à pobreza. Isso é compreensível – elas querem fazer negócio.

Assim, o governo brasileiro trabalha para deixar o tratado livre de mecanismos intrusivos. Nem precisa fazer força para isso – há muitos países dispostos a fazê-lo em seu lugar. Irã, Síria, Cuba, Venezuela e Paquistão têm a dianteira. A Índia joga no mesmo time; muitas vezes, os Estados Unidos também. Na sexta-feira, estará provavelmente garantido o triunfo total da posição brasileira.

Em Brasília fomenta-se o êxito dessas indústrias, que geram divisas e empregam milhares de pessoas em áreas de alta tecnologia. Daí a lei de março passado, que outorga crédito fácil e isenção de PIS/Pasep, Cofins e IPI.

Ninguém no governo questionou a Avibrás por vender 18 sistemas de “bombas cluster” para a Malásia, a Mectron por seus 100 mísseis anti-radar para o Paquistão ou a Condor por sua exportação de gás lacrimogêneo para a Síria de Bashar al-Assad. O tema simplesmente não está na agenda, e todos os incentivos de hoje apontam para mais do mesmo.

Entretanto, há uma pequena ameaça no horizonte. Grandes indústrias de armamento europeias e americanas começaram a ajustar sua posição. Como elas enfrentam controles cada vez mais estreitos para suas exportações, buscam meios de moldar o novo ambiente regulatório em benefício próprio.

Segundo elas, um tratado internacional decente seria bom para quem quer ganhar dinheiro. Criaria um controle de qualidade parecido à ISO, padronização de produtos comandada pelo setor privado que facilita a abertura de mercados.

Também estabeleceria códigos de conduta comuns, algo valioso em mercados cheios de clientes de caráter duvidoso, onde uma venda inapropriada pode ferir o interesse de acionistas e macular a reputação das empresas e de países.

Se essas regras pegarem e nossa indústria continuar apostando contra a transparência, todos perdem. Sobretudo o cidadão brasileiro, que é obrigado a custear um negócio sobre o qual ninguém o consultou.

 

Elio Gaspari

De SaddamHussein@org para Dilma@gov

Estimada presidente Dilma Rousseff,

Outro dia jantei com o Che Guevara e o Laurent Kabila, aquele presidente do Congo que foi assassinado em 2001. A senhora deve se recordar que o Che andou pela África e deu-se mal.

No meio da conversa Che perguntou-lhe se era verdade que em 2001 o Robert Mugabe, o soba do Zimbábue, tinha ajudado sua facção na guerra civil congolesa repassando-lhe bombas incendiárias e de fragmentação fabricadas no Brasil. Ele desconversou. O Che ficou perplexo, imaginou Lula vendendo esse tipo de armas para africanos. São bombas que incendiam a mata ou, ao explodir, soltam dezenas de milhares de esferas de aço. Destinam-se a matar indiscriminadamente combatentes e civis. Como um jornalista chamado Rubens Valente achou um pedaço dessa história, resolvi escrever-lhe, pois não quebrarei o sigilo do que se aprende por aqui. Ele contou que o Brasil vendeu 726 bombas ao Mugabe. Faturou US$ 5,8 milhões para matar africanos miseráveis. Eles morreriam nas rebeliões congolesas ou no próprio Zimbábue. Dias depois o Che me procurou, explicando que o negócio não foi feito pelo Lula, mas por Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Estava de alma leve, mas esse Guevara é um sonhador. Ele não sabe das coisas do mundo.

Eu sei, presidente Dilma, e sei que a senhora está abrindo o cofre do BNDES para o que acha que será o reerguimento da indústria bélica brasileira. Sete grandes empreiteiras já se habilitaram num programa de incentivos e, novamente, a Federação das Indústrias de São Paulo alavanca o projeto. No varejo, já se acharam bombas de gás lacrimogênio brasileiras no Bahrein e na Turquia (jogadas contra refugiados sírios).

Isso vai acabar mal. Eu vi como acabou a última iniciativa do gênero, ocorrida entre os anos 70 e 80. Os brasileiros viraram piada. Nós trocaríamos petróleo por armas e compramos blindados leves e algumas baterias de foguetes. A senhora acredita que em 1979 um industrial paulista foi a Bagdá e ofereceu tecnologia nuclear para a minha bomba atômica? Eu disse a um embaixador brasileiro que o moço não devia vender o que não tinha. Quase dois anos depois vocês voltaram a mesma história, mais um míssil capaz de transportar a bomba. Deu em nada, até porque os sionistas bombardearam meu reator e deram um tranco num poderoso general brasileiro. O Muammar Gaddafi me contou que o mesmo paulista vendia-lhe blindados e queria fabricar um tanque, acho que se chamava Osório, financiado pelos sauditas. O “reis dos reis” sabia que, se a casa de Saud financiasse uma arma, seria para matá-lo. Procure saber quanto essa operação custou. Durante minha guerra com o Irã vocês me ofereciam blindados e queriam vender metralhadores para o aiatolá. Pode? A única vítima dessas aventuras foi um jornalista brasileiro. Ele se chamava Alexandre von Baumgarten. Falou demais a respeito de uma pasta de urânio que nós compramos em 1981. No ano seguinte foi passear de barco, encontrou uma lancha com amigos, convidou-os para um copo e foram metralhados. Ele, a mulher e o barqueiro.

O homem da bomba faliu, e vocês tomaram um calote de US$ 200 milhões.

Respeitosamente,

Saddam Hussein.

 

24/07/2012 – 03h00
Janio de Freitas

A transparência opaca

A presidente Dilma Rousseff está sob o risco iminente de perder o direito moral de cobrar transparência, como princípio e exigência do seu governo, a quem quer que seja. O Brasil faz uso, neste momento, de uma falácia primária para opor-se, em reunião da ONU, a um acordo que estabeleça transparência nas exportações de armas.

A política externa proclamada pelo governo, e fiel ao que se entende como índole brasileira, é contrária a confrontos armados entre nações ou como solução de dissensões internas. Logo, não pode favorecer a realidade de que a busca dos altos lucros da exportação sigilosa de armas, além de ser o sustentáculo de ditaduras sanguinárias, está na raiz das matanças de populações civis, condenadas pelo Brasil –na europeia Bósnia, no Oriente Médio, nas infindáveis guerras da África, na Ásia, agora mesmo na Síria.

O argumento do governo brasileiro na reunião da ONU, destinada a tentar um Tratado sobre Comércio de Armas, foi transcrito, no essencial, pelo repórter Rubens Valente (Folha de domingo): a transparência das exportações de armas “poderia expor os recursos e a capacidade dos países […] de sustentar um conflito prolongado”.

Mas a capacidade bélica de um país depende do seu arsenal e da relação entre qualidade e quantidade de suas tropas. Um grande exportador pode ter arsenal insignificante, dando prioridade aos lucros do comércio legal ou não, e descuidar daquela relação.

Da mesma maneira, baixa ou nenhuma exportação não significa que um país não produza armas e não tenha Forças Armadas bem equipadas e preparadas. E ainda há os que têm “capacidade de sustentar um conflito prolongado” com armamento importado às claras, o que parece ser o caso, na América do Sul, da Venezuela, por exemplo.

O argumento brasileiro é falso. Porque infundado e porque adotado para esconder o fato de que o Brasil exportador de armas está envolvido em monstruosidades que finge condenar. O trabalho excelente de Rubens Valente revela que o governo de Fernando Henrique Cardoso autorizou a produção e venda de bombas de fragmentação ao Zimbábue do ditador Robert Mugabe.

Ou seja, a uma ditadura sanguinária, conduzida por ideias psicopáticas como a da necessidade de exterminar os brancos, remanescentes da antiga Rodésia. E ainda algumas das tribos locais.

As bombas de fragmentação são proibidas por acordo internacional: não têm alvo preciso, desabrocham no ar em milhares de bolas de aço que atingem a população civil em áreas imensas. Israel foi acusado de lançar tais bombas sobre a população palestina de Gaza, e, se o fez, o acusado de produzir e exportar as bombas foi o Brasil. Cujo governo posou de contrário aos ataques à população palestina.

Os mutilados por pisar inadvertidamente em mina camuflada, resto de algum conflito estúpido, compõem uma tragédia africana que tem comovido o mundo. Crianças, em geral, esses mutilados são os que escapam da mortandade feita pelas minas deixadas no chão de vários países. Em grande parte das minas recuperadas, graças sobretudo a entidades de benemerência europeias, está preservada a inscrição: “Made in Brazil”.

Podemos ostentar um orgulho internacional: nós também temos nossos criminosos de guerra. Gente que não escaparia no Tribunal Penal Internacional de Haia, por fomentar a morte de populações civis inocentes, e com isso lucrar fortunas.

É a esse Brasil opaco que a falta de transparência dá proteção. Como sua continuidade permitirá que a Rússia arme Bashar al Assad, e os Estados Unidos, a Inglaterra, a França, e o Brasil também, façam o mesmo pelo mundo todo.

22/07/2012 – 05h15

Brasil se opõe a “transparência total” em debate de armas na ONU

RUBENS VALENTE

DE BRASÍLIA

Em declaração escrita apresentada à ONU, o Brasil atacou “a transparência absoluta” no tema da exportação de armas. Representantes de 193 países participam de uma negociação na sede da ONU, em Nova York, até o próximo dia 27, para tentar estabelecer um inédito Tratado de Comércio de Armas.

Segundo a declaração brasileira, de 2 de julho e apresentada no encontro pelo representante nas negociações, embaixador Antonio Guerreiro, o acesso livre “poderia expor os recursos e as capacidades dos países […] de sustentar um conflito prolongado”.

“Obrigações relativas a relatórios e transparência deverão ser tratadas com os necessários bom senso e precaução”, diz o texto.

Daniel Mack, coordenador de Políticas de Controle de Armas do Instituto Sou da Paz, de São Paulo, que acompanha as negociações sobre o tratado, classificou a preocupação como “anacrônica”.

“Transparência é o ‘calcanhar de Aquiles’ da posição brasileira, o que não deixa de ser altamente irônico e contraditório, considerando a nova Lei de Acesso à Informação. […] Dos maiores exportadores, o Brasil tem a pior transparência, não só em relação aos países europeus e aos EUA, mas também em comparação com a África do Sul e a Sérvia”, disse Mack.

RASTREABILIDADE

Embora avesso à transparência nas exportações, o Brasil quer dar o exemplo no tema da rastreabilidade das munições e armas, aspecto elogiado por Mack.

O país afirma que a indústria nacional já consegue fazer marcações a laser de armas e munições, à prova de raspagem, de forma a possibilitar a imediata identificação do fabricante e do destinatário final do produto.

A medida poderia coibir desvios de armamentos e ajudar a apurar crimes contra direitos humanos.

Na declaração, o Brasil diz ser preciso um esforço internacional conjunto para prevenir, combater e erradicar o contrabando de armas.

 

Brasil vendeu bombas condenadas a ditador do Zimbábue

RUBENS VALENTE
DE BRASÍLIA

Documentos inéditos sobre a exportação de material bélico brasileiro, um dos segredos militares mais bem guardados pelo país, revelam que o Brasil vendeu ao ditador Robert Mugabe, do Zimbábue, um tipo de bomba condenada pela comunidade internacional.

Após negar duas vezes um pedido da Folha com base na Lei de Acesso à Informação, o Ministério da Defesa voltou atrás e liberou 1.572 páginas de documentos secretos.

São registros de 204 operações de exportação de armas e munição, no total de US$ 315 milhões, de janeiro de 2001 a maio de 2002, os mais recentes disponibilizados. Os papéis, diz a pasta, manterão sigilo de no mínimo dez anos.

É a primeira vez que o órgão libera o acesso a documentos do gênero.

Entre os registros está a revelação de que o Brasil vendeu ao Zimbábue, em agosto de 2001, US$ 5,8 milhões em bombas de fragmentação e incendiárias.

Foram vendidas 340 bombas completas, além de componentes para a montagem de outras 426 bombas de fragmentação e 605 incendiárias.

Na época da aquisição, Mugabe, no poder desde 1980, era acusado de ajudar uma guerra no vizinho Congo e enfrentava distúrbios na zona rural do país, com a morte de fazendeiros brancos.

A venda pelo Brasil das bombas de fragmentação era uma antiga suspeita de ONGs que monitoram o uso dessas munições, conhecidas como “de dispersão”.

A bomba é assim chamada porque, ao ser detonada, espalha de 14 mil a 120 mil esferas de aço, a depender do modelo, que podem atingir indistintamente combatentes e população civil.

As esferas de bombas maiores podem se espalhar por área equivalente a sete campos de futebol.

Em 2008, mais de cem países assinaram convenção que veta a fabricação e venda do tipo de bomba. Brasil, EUA e Rússia, dentre outros, recusaram-se. “A transparência do Brasil na matéria é historicamente muito ruim”, diz Cristian Wittmann, de uma coalizão de ONGs contra esse tipo de munição.

O diretor de Produtos de Defesa do Ministério da Defesa, o general de brigada Aderico Mattioli, disse que muitas vendas “chamam a atenção” por indicarem munição pesada, mas podem estar relacionadas a treinamento de militares. “É uma munição, diga-se de passagem, de um material antigo”, disse.

RANKING

Os dados obtidos pela Folha eram desconhecidos por ONGs que estudam o comércio de armas. No ranking do Sipri (Instituto Internacional de Estocolmo para Pesquisa sobre a Paz), uma referência no tema, o Brasil aparece em 2001 no 46º lugar, o último, ao lado de países que não venderam material bélico.

Eles revelam a venda total de US$ 287,4 milhões em 2001, o que projetaria o Brasil para a décima posição no ranking liderado pelos EUA, que venderam US$ 6 bilhões.

A Sipri cita que o Brasil vendeu US$ 26 milhões em 2002, menos que as vendas de apenas quatro meses daquele ano: US$ 27,6 milhões.

Running on Empty: U.S. ethanol policies set to reach their illogical conclusion (Triple Crisis)

http://triplecrisis.com – 23 July 2012

Timothy A. Wise

I’m as cynical as the next policy wonk, but sometimes even I am surprised at the perverse outcomes of some of those policies. Take the bizarre scenario outlined in the new agricultural outlook report from the FAO and the OECD regarding the projected rise in ethanol trade – ethanol traded for ethanol – between the United States and Brazil. That’s right, 6.3 billion gallons a year sloshing between the world’s pre-eminent ethanol producers by 2021. And all in the name of the environment, without a single drop helping people or the planet.

Why would the United States, which now devotes 40% of its corn crop to the production of ethanol, import more than 4 billion gallons of ethanol from Brazil? And why would Brazil at the same time import a projected 2 billion gallons from the U.S.? Couldn’t we just save all those transactions costs and shipping-related greenhouse gas emissions by keeping our ethanol and cutting our projected ethanol imports from Brazil in half?

Not if your goal is to game the U.S. biofuel mandate.

The U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, passed in 2007 and known as RFS2, includes a mandate for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel use by 2022, with a nested set of mandates for different types of biofuels. Conventional or first-generation biofuels, such as ethanol from corn, have limited environmental benefits, with supposed reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of about 20%. Congress wisely set the mandate such that the majority of the 36 billion-gallon mandate should be met by “advanced biofuels” with a GHG score of 50% or better in terms of reductions.

Well, advanced biofuel production in the United States isn’t going so well. A small share is expected to come from advanced biodiesel, and that target remains distant but plausible. But the rest is supposed to come from the development of cellulosic ethanol. It turns out that all the R&D money has gone into corn ethanol, greased by the subsidies and incentives Congress lavished to prime that corn-fed pump. No one expects much cellulosic ethanol production anytime soon, though we could be pleasantly surprised. At this point, all we produce is a whole lot of corn ethanol, and we are already nearing the technical limit of 15 billion gallons for non-advanced biofuels.

Fortunately for Brazilian ethanol producers and, indirectly, their U.S. counterparts, the renewable fuel mandate can be met to a significant extent by the use of “other” advanced biofuels. Even though Congress was sold the RFS on the promise of energy independence, those “other biofuels” do not have to be produced in the United States. (In fact, mandating U.S. sourcing could have been subject to a WTO challenge.) Brazil’s sugarcane-based ethanol is considered advanced, with a GHG-reduction score of 50% despite widespread concerns about a range of other social and environmental impacts.

So by 2021 FAO/OECD researchers project that to meet even somewhat relaxed U.S. RFS2 mandates for total biofuel use and advanced biofuel use the United States will import more than 4 billion gallons of sugar ethanol from Brazil.

Actually, it could be much much more, but the researchers clearly couldn’t imagine Congress letting that happen. But they modeled that too, and if current EPA policies are followed and the U.S. does not relax the demands of RFS2 to compensate for low domestic production of cellulosic ethanol, imports from Brazil are projected to be more than 13 billion gallons, almost as much as the U.S. currently produces in corn ethanol.

A third scenario, more perverse than the last but perhaps more likely, is if the EPA decides to allow U.S. corn ethanol to fill the gap left by the cellulosic shortfall, in spite of its limited environmental benefits and its high social costs in terms of food prices. The FAO-OECD model on that one projects a 35% rise in corn demand and a whopping 16% increase in global corn prices.

But the ultimate perversity is the ethanol-for-ethanol trade between the U.S. and Brazil. Under the FAO-OECD’s baseline scenario, Brazil would import 2 billion gallons of corn ethanol from the United States. Why, if it’s a major ethanol exporter and it produces more environmentally sustainable ethanol? To make up for the domestic shortfall created by its exports to the U.S., and to meet its own rising demand from its expanding fleet of flex-fuel cars. They’ll take our low-grade corn ethanol if they can get a higher price for their sugar-based equivalent.

Talk about perverse. It’s bad enough that we meet our environmental goals not through good old American know-how but by buying it from someone else. Then we turn around and sell them an environmentally inferior equivalent at a cheaper price.

In the process, another round in the food-fuel fight will be won by the fuels, with ethanol demand continuing to put upward pressure on corn prices globally. The FAO-OECD report contains strong warnings on biofuels’ impacts on food prices, and it went to press even before drought parched the U.S. corn belt. They projected stable or slightly declining prices in 2012 and forward. Instead, corn and soybean prices are hitting historic highs and the world is staring down the loaded barrels of the third major spike in commodities prices in the last five years.

Unfortunately, the powers that be seem to have learned nothing from the first two. They certainly haven’t learned that it’s still a bad idea to put food in our cars.

For more, see Wise’s coauthored report, “Resolving the Food Crisis,” and his report for ActionAid, “Biofueling Hunger.”

What is a carbon price and why do we need one? (The Guardian)

This Q&A is part of the Guardian’s Ultimate climate change FAQ

Grantham Research Institute and 
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 July 2012 10.38 BST
Parliament House during a pro-carbon tax rally in Canberra, Australia

A pro-carbon tax rally in Canberra, Australia, October 2011. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AFP/Getty Images

A carbon price is a cost applied to carbon pollution to encourage polluters to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas they emit into the atmosphere. Economists widely agree that introducing a carbon price is the single most effective way for countries to reduce their emissions.

Climate change is considered a market failure by economists, because it imposes huge costs and risks on future generations who will suffer the consequences of climate change, without these costs and risks normally being reflected in market prices. To overcome this market failure, they argue, we need to internalise the costs of future environmental damage by putting a price on the thing that causes it – namely carbon emissions.

carbon price not only has the effect of encouraging lower-carbon behaviour (eg using a bike rather than driving a car), but also raises money that can be used in part to finance a clean-up of “dirty” activities (eg investment in research into fuel cells to help cars pollute less). With a carbon price in place, the costs of stopping climate change are distributed across generations rather than being borne overwhelmingly by future generations.

There are two main ways to establish a carbon price. First, a government can levy a carbon tax on the distribution, sale or use of fossil fuels, based on their carbon content. This has the effect of increasing the cost of those fuels and the goods or services created with them, encouraging business and people to switch to greener production and consumption. Typically the government will decide how to use the revenue, though in one version, the so-called fee-and-dividend model – the tax revenues are distributed in their entirety directly back to the population.

The second approach is a quota system called cap-and-trade. In this model, the total allowable emissions in a country or region are set in advance (“capped”). Permits to pollute are created for the allowable emissions budget and either allocated or auctioned to companies. The companies can trade permits between one another, introducing a market for pollution that should ensure that the carbon savings are made as cheaply as possible.

To serve its purpose, the carbon price set by a tax or cap-and-trade scheme must be sufficiently high to encourage polluters to change behaviour and reduce pollution in accordance with national targets. For example, the UK has a target to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, compared with 1990 levels, with various intermediate targets along the way. The government’s independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, estimates that a carbon price of £30 per tonne of carbon dioxide in 2020 and £70 in 2030 would be required to meet these goals.

Currently, many large UK companies pay a price for the carbon they emit through the EU’s emissions trading scheme. However, the price of carbon through the scheme is considered by many economists to be too low to help the UK to meet its targets, so the Treasury plans to make all companies covered by the scheme pay a minimum of £16 per tonne of carbon emitted from April 2013.

Ideally, there should be a uniform carbon price across the world, reflecting the fact that a tonne of carbon dioxide does the same amount of damage over time wherever it is emitted. Uniform pricing would also remove the risk that polluting businesses flee to so-called “pollution havens”‘ – countries where a lack of environmental regulation enables them to continue to pollute unrestrained. At the moment, carbon pricing is far from uniform but a growing number of countries and regions have, or plan to have, carbon pricing schemes in place, whether through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes. These include the European Union, Australia, South Korea, South Africa, parts of China and California.

• This article was written by Alex Bowen of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at LSE in collaboration with the Guardian

European Commission backs calls for open access to scientific research (The Guardian)

Move follows announcement by UK government that it wants all taxpayer-funded research to be free to view by 2014

Reuters/guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 July 2012 14.41 BST
Neelie Kroes

Neelie Kroes, European Commission vice-president for digital agenda, said: ‘Taxpayers should not have to pay twice for scientific research.’ Photograph: Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images

The European Commission, which controls one of the world’s largest science budgets, has backed calls for free access to publicly fundedresearch in a move that could force a major change in the business model for publishers such as Reed Elsevier.

“Taxpayers should not have to pay twice for scientific research and they need seamless access to raw data,” said Neelie Kroes, European Commission vice-president for digital agenda.

The EC saidon Tuesday that open access will be a “general principle” applied to grants awarded through the €80bn Horizon 2020 programme for research and innovation.

From 2014 all articles produced with funding from Horizon 2020 will have to be accessible and the goal is for 60% of European publicly funded research to be available by 2016.

The news follows the announcement by the British government that it wants all taxpayer-funded research to be free to view by 2014. David Willets, the universities and science minister told the Gaurdian: “If the taxpayer has paid for this research to happen, that work shouldn’t be put behind a paywall before a British citizen can read it.”

The most prestigious academic journals, such as Nature, Science and Cell, earn the bulk of their revenues through subscriptions from readers.

They have lucrative deals with university libraries, worth about £150m to £200m a year in the UK, to give access to the same scientists who produce and review, usually without payment, the research they publish.

Open-access journals, such as the Public Library of Science, are ofteninternet-based and charge researchers a fee for publication, allowing free access for anyone after publication.

The open-access market has been growing rapidly over the past decade but still only accounts for about 3% of the £5.1bn global market for scholarly journals.

The subscription model has come under attack from some scientists, who argue that publishing companies are making fat profits on the back of taxpayer-funded research.

Elsevier publishes more than 2,000 journals with a staff of about 7,000. It made a profit last year of £768m on revenues of £2.1bn, giving a margin of about 37%.

Publishers argue that quality does not come cheap and their subscription charges reflect the need to maintain large editorial departments and databases of published research.

Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, European commissioner for research, innovation and science, swept this argument aside. “We must give taxpayers more bang for their buck,” she said in a statement. “Open access to scientific papers and data is an important means of achieving this.”

The commission’s move follows recent news that the European medicines regulator will open its data vaults to allow independent researchers to scrutinise results from drug companies’ trials.

“The EU’s decision to adopt a similar policy to that of the UK will mean that the transition time from subscription-based to open-access publishing will be substantially reduced,” Professor Adam Tickell, who was involved in a recent UK government-commissioned report on the issue, told Reuters.

Tickell, of the University of Birmingham, predicted a rapid and substantial reduction in the cost of subscriptions, adding: “With the support of the EU, UK government and major charities, such as the Wellcome Trust, open access to research findings will soon be a reality.”