Arquivo da tag: Discriminação

Ações afirmativas e sistema de cotas nas universidades brasileiras

Mais um passo na luta pela democratização efetiva do Ensino Superior

dhescbrasil.org.br

10 de agosto de 2012

Em 07 de agosto de 2012 o Senado Federal aprovou um projeto que tramitava a cerca de  uma década no Congresso, instituindo a reserva de 50% das vagas das universidades e institutos tecnológicos federais para estudantes que cursaram o ensino médio em escola pública.

Além disso, a lei prevê que, destas vagas, metade serão destinadas a estudantes com renda familiar per capita até um salário mínimo e meio. Também prevê que em cada estado serão destinadas vagas para pretos, pardos e indígenas, respeitando o percentual destes grupos nos estados, de acordo com os dados do IBGE.

Tais medidas visam atender a demandas históricas de ativistas que lutam pelo direito à educação e também pela democratização efetiva do ensino superior no país. Como sabemos historicamente o sistema universitário brasileiro se desenvolveu de forma restrita em termos de número de vagas e também de grupos atendidos. O ensino superior foi pensado durante muito tempo como um sistema para poucos e, com frequência, para aqueles que conseguiram se preparar para competir por uma vaga num quadro altamente competitivo.

Ao longo dos anos 1990 e principalmente dos anos 2000 ampliou-se o consenso entre diferentes setores da sociedade brasileira sobre a enorme desigualdade no acesso ao ensino superior no Brasil, expresso no paradoxo conhecido de que entre os estudantes das universidades públicas predominam os estudantes que freqüentaram escolas particulares no ensino básico, sendo o inverso também verdadeiro.

Observou-se também que os jovens brasileiros que chegavam ao ensino superior eram predominantemente de classe média e de classe alta e em sua maioria brancos, deixando de fora desta possibilidade, portanto, um grande contingente de jovens pobres, pretos, pardos e indígenas.

Em face de esta exclusão educacional, entidades não governamentais e movimentos sociais se mobilizaram para oferecer oportunidades de formação complementar para os jovens pobres, pretos, pardos e indígenas aumentarem suas chances de ingresso. Universidades, prefeituras, empresas e igrejas também se engajaram nestas iniciativas, levando a resultados relevantes em termos de aprovação destes estudantes em exames de seleção.

Também órgãos governamentais passaram a desenvolver políticas para ampliar o acesso ao ensino superior de grupos historicamente excluídos, tais como a reserva de vagas em  universidades públicas, a criação do Programa Universidade para Todos (PROUNI), destinado a fornecer bolsas de estudo em instituições privadas de ensino superior e a  ampliação do investimento em universidades federais visando o aumento da oferta de cursos e vagas.

Em 2012 é possível afirmar que estas medidas produziram efeitos positivos no que diz respeito à ampliação do acesso ao ensino superior de jovens de grupos excluídos. Entretanto, ainda permanece uma distância entre o número de jovens que concluem o ensino médio em escola pública e os que conseguem ingressar em instituição pública de ensino superior. Também ainda é desproporcional o número de estudantes negros e indígenas que chegam ao ensino superior, em comparação com sua proporção na população.

A lei aprovada pelo Senado vem justamente ampliar de forma substantiva estas oportunidades, levando a um compromisso das instituições federais de ensino superior e técnico com esta expansão. A lei também traz um importante compromisso com a igualdade racial, através da formalização do compromisso de ampliação do ingresso de estudantes negros e indígenas em proporções definidas segundo sua representação na população de cada estado da federação.

Num país que, até recentemente, tinha dificuldades em aceitar a desigualdade racial presente na sociedade, a aprovação desta lei reveste-se de grande importância, pois permite que se avance na efetiva democratização de oportunidades de ingresso no ensino superior.

Cabe-nos, agora, perguntar? Todos os problemas se resolvem com esta medida? Obviamente não. Na verdade a aprovação desta lei traz desafios importantes, como a ampliação e consolidação de permanência de estudantes de menor renda no ensino superior, através de um efetivo e eficaz programa de assistência estudantil. Também traz o desafio de continuar ampliando as oportunidades para que milhões de jovens pobres, negros e indígenas possam ter acesso e completar com sucesso o ensino médio, a fim de que possam participar da seleção de ingresso ao ensino superior.

Medidas de democratização com as que estão contidas nesta nova lei são marcos importantes no longo caminho da realização do direito à educação no Brasil. Esperamos que, após a sanção desta lei pela presidência, possamos inaugurar um novo momento nas políticas educacionais no país, com ampliação do acesso, oportunidades mais democráticas de permanência no ensino superior e pela busca de maior igualdade em todos os níveis. O caminho é longo, mas, com esta lei, será dado um grande passo.

Rosana Heringer
Relatora do Direito Humano à Educação

*   *   *

INCLUSÃO NO ENSINO SUPERIOR: RAÇA OU RENDA?

João Feres Júnior*

Grupo Estratégico de Análise da Educação Superior no Brasil – FLACSO Brasil

A decisão por unanimidade do Supremo Tribunal Federal, no dia 26 de abril de 2012, que declarou a constitucionalidade do sistema de cotas étnico-raciais para admissão de alunos ao ensino superior, teve, entre várias consequências positivas, a virtude de abrir a possibilidade para que o debate acerca da inclusão por meio do acesso à educação superior se aprofunde. Mudamos, portanto, de um contexto no qual o debate era dominantemente normativo, preocupado principalmente com a questão da legalidade e constitucionalidade da ação afirmativa étnico-racial, para um novo contexto, no qual passa a importar a discussão concreta acerca dos mecanismos e critérios adotados pelas políticas de inclusão.

Além de sua pertinência moral, a decisão do Supremo é consonante com várias análises a partir de dados estatísticos sólidos, feitas a partir do final dos anos 1970 até o presente, que mostram a relevância da variável classe e da variável raça na reprodução da desigualdade no Brasil. Esse fato nos leva a intuir que o uso de ambas as variáveis em políticas de inclusão é recomendável. Tal intuição é em geral correta, mas não podemos nos esquecer de que da análise sociológica de dados populacionais ao desenho de políticas públicas a distância é grande e não pode ser percorrida sem mediações: identificação de públicos, adoção de categorias, criação de regras, estabelecimento de objetivos, avaliação de resultados etc.

Ao abordar a questão dos critérios de seleção, primeiro cabe fazer uma ressalva de caráter histórico. O debate midiático sobre ação afirmativa foca quase exclusivamente sobre a ação afirmativa étnico-racial. Contudo, a modalidade mais frequente de ação afirmativa adotada pelas universidades públicas brasileiras hoje tem como beneficiários alunos oriundos da escola pública: 61 de um total de 98 instituições, enquanto que apenas 40 têm políticas para negros (ou pretos e pardos).

Mas isso não é só: o processo de criação dessas políticas de inclusão no ensino superior brasileiro – hoje 72% das universidades públicas brasileira têm algum tipo de ação afirmativa – não pode ser narrado sem falarmos do protagonismo do Movimento Negro e de seus simpatizantes ao articular a demanda por inclusão frente às universidades por todo o Brasil. Ao serem pressionadas por esses setores da sociedade civil organizada, as universidades reagiram, cada uma a seu modo, pouquíssimas vezes criando cotas somente para negros (4 casos), muitas vezes criando cotas para
negros e alunos de escola pública (31), e majoritariamente criando cotas para alunos de escola pública. Não houve, por outro lado, nenhum movimento independente para a inclusão de alunos pobres no ensino superior. Em suma, se não fosse pela demanda por inclusão para negros, o debate sobre o papel da universidade no Brasil democrático certamente estaria bem mais atrasado.

O ponto mais importante, contudo, é entender que as mediações entre o conhecimento sociológico e a política pública têm de ser regidas por um espírito pragmatista que segue o seguinte método: a partir de uma concordância básica acerca da situação e dos objetivos, estabelecemos ações mediadoras para a implantação de uma política e então passamos a observar seus resultados. A observação sistemática (e não impressionista) dos resultados é fundamental para que possamos regular as ações mediadoras a fim de atingir nossos objetivos, ou mesmo mudar os objetivos ou a leitura da situação. Sem esse espírito é difícil proceder de maneira progressista na abordagem de qualquer assunto que diga respeito a uma intervenção concreta na realidade.

Assim, ainda que saibamos que ambas as variáveis, classe e raça, devam ser objeto de políticas de inclusão, não existe um plano ideal para aplicá-las. Será que deveriam ser separadas (cotas para negros e cotas para escola pública) ou combinadas (cotas que somente aceitem candidatos com as duas qualificações)? Fato é que pouquíssimas universidades adotam a primeira opção, enquanto 36 das 40 universidades públicas com ação afirmativa para negros têm algum critério de classe combinado, seja ele escola pública ou renda.

Há também outra questão importante: a variável classe deve ser operacionalizada pelo critério de renda ou escola pública? No agregado, as universidades escolheram preferencialmente “escola pública”, 30 das 40, pois ele é mais eficaz do que “declaração de renda” para se auferir a classe social do ingressante – pessoas com renda informal facilmente burlariam o procedimento. Contudo, 6 universidades, entre elas as universidades estaduais do Rio de Janeiro, exemplos pioneiros de adoção de ação afirmativa no país, adotam o critério de renda. No caso das universidades fluminenses, os programas que começaram em 2003 tinham cotas para escola pública separadas de cotas para “negros e pardos” (sic), mas em 2005 a lei foi alterada passando a sobrepor um limite de renda à cota racial.

Informações advindas de pessoas que participaram do debate que levou a tal mudança apontam para o fato de que a exposição do assunto à mídia, fortemente enviesada contra tais políticas, fez com que os tomadores de decisão tentassem se proteger do argumento de que a ação afirmativa beneficiaria somente a classe média negra. A despeito da causa que levou a tal mudança, o método sugerido acima nos leva a olhar para as consequências. Dados da UENF (Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro) mostram que nos anos em que vigorou o sistema antigo, 2003 e 2004, entraram respectivamente 40 e 60 alunos não-brancos – aproximadamente 11% do total de ingressantes. A sobreposição de critérios que passou a operar no ano seguinte derrubou esse número para 19. A média de alunos não-brancos que ingressaram sob o novo regime de 2005 a 2009 é ainda menor – 13 –, o que representa parcos 3% do total de ingressantes.

Conclusão: uma política que produzia resultados foi tornada praticamente irrelevante devido à adoção de critérios que no papel parecem justos, ou adequados, ou politicamente estratégicos. Contudo, o resultado deveria ser a parte fundamental. O exemplo comprova nosso ponto de vista de que não há receitas mágicas. Se isso é verdade, então a experimentação faz-se necessária. Mas fica faltando ainda um elemento crucial nessa equação. Para avaliarmos os resultados da experimentação é preciso que as universidades com programas de inclusão tornem públicos seus dados, e isso não tem acontecido, com raríssimas exceções. Sem avaliações sólidas das políticas, corremos o risco de ficarmos eternamente no plano da conjectura e da anedota e assim não conseguir atingir o objetivo maior dessas iniciativas, que é o de democratizar o acesso à educação superior no Brasil.

Rio de Janeiro, junho de 2012

Este texto é uma contribuição do autor ao projeto Grupo Estratégico de Análise da Educação Superior
(GEA-ES), realizado pela FLACSO-Brasil com apoio da Fundação Ford.

14 Wacky “Facts” Kids Will Learn in Louisiana’s Voucher Schools (Mother Jones)

—By Deanna Pan | Tue Aug. 7, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

God Bless Our SchoolSeparation of church and what? Currier & Ives/Library of Congress

Thanks to a new law privatizing public education in Louisiana, Bible-based curriculum can now indoctrinate young, pliant minds with the good news of the Lord—all on the state taxpayers’ dime.

Under Gov. Bobby Jindal’s voucher program, considered the most sweeping in the country, Louisiana is poised to spend tens of millions of dollars to help poor and middle-class students from the state’s notoriously terrible public schools receive a private education. While the governor’s plan sounds great in the glittery parlance of the state’s PR machine, the program is rife with accountability problems that actually haven’t been solved by the new standards the Louisiana Department of Education adopted two weeks ago.

For one, of the 119 (mostly Christian) participating schools, Zack Kopplin, a gutsy college sophomore who’s taken to Change.org to stonewall the program, has identified at least 19that teach or champion creationist nonscience and will rake in nearly $4 million in public funding from the initial round of voucher designations.

Many of these schools, Kopplin notes, rely on Pensacola-based A Beka Book curriculum or Bob Jones University Press textbooks to teach their pupils Bible-based “facts,” such as the existence ofNessie the Loch Ness Monster and all sorts of pseudoscience that researcher Rachel Tabachnick and writer Thomas Vinciguerra have thankfully pored over so the rest of world doesn’t have to.

Here are some of my favorite lessons:

1. Dinosaurs and humans probably hung out: “Bible-believing Christians cannot accept any evolutionary interpretation. Dinosaurs and humans were definitely on the earth at the same time and may have even lived side by side within the past few thousand years.”—Life Science, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2007

Much like Whoopi and Teddy in the cinematic classic Theodore Rex. Screenshot: YouTube

Much like tough cop Katie Coltrane and Teddy the T-rex in the direct-to-video hit Theodore Rex Screenshot: YouTube

2. Dragons were totally real: “[Is] it possible that a fire-breathing animal really existed? Today some scientists are saying yes. They have found large chambers in certain dinosaur skulls…The large skull chambers could have contained special chemical-producing glands. When the animal forced the chemicals out of its mouth or nose, these substances may have combined and produced fire and smoke.”—Life Science, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2007

3“God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ.”—America: Land That I Love, Teacher ed., A Beka Book, 1994

4. Africa needs religion: “Africa is a continent with many needs. It is still in need of the gospel…Only about ten percent of Africans can read and write. In some areas the mission schools have been shut down by Communists who have taken over the government.”—Old World History and Geography in Christian Perspective, 3rd ed., A Beka Book, 2004

The literacy rate in Africa is "only about 10 percent"--give or take a few dozen percentage points. residentevil_stars2001/Flickr

The literacy rate in Africa is “only about 10 percent”…give or take a few dozen percentage pointsresidentevil_stars2001/Flickr

5. Slave masters were nice guys: “A few slave holders were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slave holders treated their slaves well.”—United States History for Christian Schools, 2nd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 1991

Slaves and their masters: BFF 4lyfe!  Edward Williams Clay/Library of Congress

Doesn’t everyone look happy?! Edward Williams Clay/Library of Congress

6. The KKK was A-OK: “[The Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians.”—United States History for Christian Schools, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2001

Just your friendly neighborhood Imperial Wizard! Unknown/Library of Congress

Just your friendly neighborhood Imperial Wizard Unknown/Library of Congress

7. The Great Depression wasn’t as bad as the liberals made it sound: “Perhaps the best known work of propaganda to come from the Depression was John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath…Other forms of propaganda included rumors of mortgage foreclosures, mass evictions, and hunger riots and exaggerated statistics representing the number of unemployed and homeless people in America.”—United States History: Heritage of Freedom, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1996

Definitely Photoshopped.  U.S. National Archives and Records Administration/Wikipedia

Definitely Photoshopped. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration/Wikipedia

8. SCOTUS enslaved fetuses: “Ignoring 3,500 years of Judeo-Christian civilization, religion, morality, and law, the Burger Court held that an unborn child was not a living person but rather the “property” of the mother (much like slaves were considered property in the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford).”—American Government in Christian Perspective, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1997

9. The Red Scare isn’t over yet: “It is no wonder that Satan hates the family and has hurled his venom against it in the form of Communism.”— American Government in Christian Perspective, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1997

Meanwhile, God sneezes glitter snot in the form of Capitalism. Catechetical Guild/Wikipedia

Catechetical Guild/Wikipedia

10. Mark Twain and Emily Dickinson were a couple of hacks: “[Mark] Twain’s outlook was both self-centered and ultimately hopeless…Twain’s skepticism was clearly not the honest questioning of a seeker of truth but the deliberate defiance of a confessed rebel.”—Elements of Literature for Christian Schools, Bob Jones University, 2001

“Several of [Emily Dickinson’s] poems show a presumptuous attitude concerning her eternal destiny and a veiled disrespect for authority in general. Throughout her life she viewed salvation as a gamble, not a certainty. Although she did view the Bible as a source of poetic inspiration, she never accepted it as an inerrant guide to life.”—Elements of Literature for Christian Schools, Bob Jones University, 2001

And her grammar was just despicable! Ugh! Todd-Bingham picture collection, 1837-1966 (inclusive)/ Manuscripts & Archives, Yale University

To say nothing of her poetry’s Syntax and Punctuation—how odious it is.Todd-Bingham picture collection, 1837-1966 (inclusive)/ Manuscripts & Archives, Yale University

11. Abstract algebra is too dang complicated: “Unlike the ‘modern math’ theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Bookteaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Bookprovides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory.”—ABeka.com

Maths is hard! Screenshot: MittRomney.com

MATHS: Y U SO HARD? Screenshot: MittRomney.com

12Gay people “have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists.”—Teacher’s Resource Guide to Current Events for Christian Schools, 1998-1999, Bob Jones University Press, 1998

13. “Global environmentalists have said and written enough to leave no doubt that their goal is to destroy the prosperous economies of the world’s richest nations.”Economics: Work and Prosperity in Christian Perspective, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1999

Plotting world destruction, BRB.  Lynn Freeny, Department of Energy/Flickr

Plotting economic apocalypse, BRB Lynn Freeny, Department of Energy/Flickr

14. Globalization is a precursor to rapture: “But instead of this world unification ushering in an age of prosperity and peace, as most globalists believe it will, it will be a time of unimaginable human suffering as recorded in God’s Word. The Anti-christ will tightly regulate who may buy and sell.”—Economics: Work and Prosperity in Christian Perspective, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1999

He'll probably be in cahoots with the global environmentalists. Luca Signorelli/Wikipedia

Swapping insider-trading secrets is the devil’s favorite pastime. Luca Signorelli/WikipediaWhew! Seems extreme. But perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised. Gov. Jindal, you remember,once tried to perform an exorcism on a college gal pal.

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.”

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

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.

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.

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.

Social Identification, Not Obedience, Might Motivate Unspeakable Acts (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (July 18, 2012) — What makes soldiers abuse prisoners? How could Nazi officials condemn thousands of Jews to gas chamber deaths? What’s going on when underlings help cover up a financial swindle? For years, researchers have tried to identify the factors that drive people to commit cruel and brutal acts and perhaps no one has contributed more to this knowledge than psychological scientist Stanley Milgram.

Just over 50 years ago, Milgram embarked on what were to become some of the most famous studies in psychology. In these studies, which ostensibly examined the effects of punishment on learning, participants were assigned the role of “teacher” and were required to administer shocks to a “learner” that increased in intensity each time the learner gave an incorrect answer. As Milgram famously found, participants were willing to deliver supposedly lethal shocks to a stranger, just because they were asked to do so.

Researchers have offered many possible explanations for the participants’ behavior and the take-home conclusion that seems to have emerged is that people cannot help but obey the orders of those in authority, even when those orders go to the extremes.

This obedience explanation, however, fails to account for a very important aspect of the studies: why, and under what conditions, people did not obey the experimenter.

In a new article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, researchers Stephen Reicher of the University of St. Andrews and Alexander Haslam and Joanne Smith of the University of Exeter propose a new way of looking at Milgram’s findings.

The researchers hypothesized that, rather than obedience to authority, the participants’ behavior might be better explained by their patterns of social identification. They surmised that conditions that encouraged identification with the experimenter (and, by extension, the scientific community) led participants to follow the experimenters’ orders, while conditions that encouraged identification with the learner (and the general community) led participants to defy the experimenters’ orders.

As the researchers explain, this suggests that participants’ willingness to engage in destructive behavior is “a reflection not of simple obedience, but of active identification with the experimenter and his mission.”

Reicher, Haslam, and Smith wanted to examine whether participants’ willingness to administer shocks across variants of the Milgram paradigm could be predicted by the extent to which the variant emphasized identification with the experimenter and identification with the learner.

For their study, the researchers recruited two different groups of participants. The expert group included 32 academic social psychologists from two British universities and on Australian university. The nonexpert group included 96 first-year psychology students who had not yet learned about the Milgram studies.

All participants were read a short description of Milgram’s baseline study and they were then given details about 15 variants of the study. For each variant, they were asked to indicate the extent to which that variant would lead participants to identify with the experimenter and the scientific community and the extent to which it would lead them to identify with the learner and the general community.

The results of the study confirmed the researchers’ hypotheses. Identification with the experimenter was a very strong positive predictor of the level of obedience displayed in each variant. On the other hand, identification with the learner was a strong negative predictor of the level of obedience. The relative identification score (identification with experimenter minus identification with learner) was also a very strong predictor of the level of obedience.

According to the authors, these new findings suggest that we need to rethink obedience as the standard explanation for why people engage in cruel and brutal behavior. This new research “moves us away from a dominant viewpoint that has prevailed within and beyond the academic world for nearly half a century — a viewpoint suggesting that people engage in barbaric acts because they have little insight into what they are doing and conform slavishly to the will of authority,” they write.

These new findings suggest that social identification provides participants with a moral compass and motivates them to act as followers. This followership, as the authors point out, is not thoughtless — “it is the endeavor of committed subjects.”

Looking at the findings this way has several advantages, Reicher, Haslam, and Smith argue. First, it mirrors recent historical assessments suggesting that functionaries in brutalizing regimes — like the Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann — do much more than merely follow orders. And it simultaneously accounts for why participants are more likely to follow orders under certain conditions than others.

The researchers acknowledge that the methodology used in this research is somewhat unorthodox — the most direct way to examine the question of social identification would involve recreating the Milgram paradigm and varying different aspects of the paradigm to manipulate social identification with both experimenter and learner. But this kind of research involves considerable ethical challenges. The purpose of the article, the authors say, is to provide a strong theoretical case for such research, “so that work to address the critical question of why (and not just whether) people still prove willing to participate in brutalizing acts can move forward.”

*   *   *

Most People Will Administer Shocks When Prodded By ‘Authority Figure’

ScienceDaily (Dec. 22, 2008) — Nearly 50 years after one of the most controversial behavioral experiments in history, a social psychologist has found that people are still just as willing to administer what they believe are painful electric shocks to others when urged on by an authority figure.

Jerry M. Burger, PhD, replicated one of the famous obedience experiments of the late Stanley Milgram, PhD, and found that compliance rates in the replication were only slightly lower than those found by Milgram. And, like Milgram, he found no difference in the rates of obedience between men and women.

Burger’s findings are reported in the January issue of American Psychologist. The issue includes a special section reflecting on Milgram’s work 24 years after his death on Dec. 20, 1984, and analyzing Burger’s study.

“People learning about Milgram’s work often wonder whether results would be any different today,” said Burger, a professor at Santa Clara University. “Many point to the lessons of the Holocaust and argue that there is greater societal awareness of the dangers of blind obedience. But what I found is the same situational factors that affected obedience in Milgram’s experiments still operate today.”

Stanley Milgram was an assistant professor at Yale University in 1961 when he conducted the first in a series of experiments in which subjects – thinking they were testing the effect of punishment on learning – administered what they believed were increasingly powerful electric shocks to another person in a separate room. An authority figure conducting the experiment prodded the first person, who was assigned the role of “teacher” to continue shocking the other person, who was playing the role of “learner.” In reality, both the authority figure and the learner were in on the real intent of the experiment, and the imposing-looking shock generator machine was a fake.

Milgram found that, after hearing the learner’s first cries of pain at 150 volts, 82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks; of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator’s end, at 450 volts. In Burger’s replication, 70 percent of the participants had to be stopped as they continued past 150 volts – a difference that was not statistically significant.

“Nearly four out of five of Milgram’s participants who continued after 150 volts went all the way to the end of the shock generator,” Burger said. “Because of this pattern, knowing how participants react at the 150-volt juncture allows us to make a reasonable guess about what they would have done if we had continued with the complete procedure.”

Milgram’s techniques have been debated ever since his research was first published. As a result, there is now an ethics codes for psychologists and other controls have been placed on experimental research that have effectively prevented any precise replications of Milgram’s work. “No study using procedures similar to Milgram’s has been published in more than three decades,” according to Burger.

Burger implemented a number of safeguards that enabled him to win approval for the work from his university’s institutional review board. First, he determined that while Milgram allowed his subjects to administer “shocks” of up to 450 volts in 15-volt increments, 150 volts appeared to be the critical point where nearly every participant paused and indicated reluctance to continue. Thus, 150 volts was the top range in Burger’s study.

In addition, Burger screened out any potential subjects who had taken more than two psychology courses in college or who indicated familiarity with Milgram’s research. A clinical psychologist also interviewed potential subjects and eliminated anyone who might have a negative reaction to the study procedure.

In Burger’s study, participants were told at least three times that they could withdraw from the study at any time and still receive the $50 payment. Also, these participants were given a lower-voltage sample shock to show the generator was real – 15 volts, as compared to 45 volts administered by Milgram.

Several of the psychologists writing in the same issue of American Psychologist questioned whether Burger’s study is truly comparable to Milgram’s, although they acknowledge its usefulness.

“…there are simply too many differences between this study and the earlier obedience research to permit conceptually precise and useful comparisons,” wrote Arthur G. Miller, PhD, of Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

“Though direct comparisons of absolute levels of obedience cannot be made between the 150-volt maximum of Burger’s research design and Milgram’s 450-volt maximum, Burger’s ‘obedience lite’ procedures can be used to explore further some of the situational variables studied by Milgram, as well as look at additional variables,” wrote Alan C. Elms, PhD, of the University of California, Davis. Elms assisted Milgram in the summer of 1961.

What was he thinking? Study turns to ape intellect (AP)

By SETH BORENSTEIN-Associated Press Sunday, June 24, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) – The more we study animals, the less special we seem.

Baboons can distinguish between written words and gibberish. Monkeys seem to be able to do multiplication. Apes can delay instant gratification longer than a human child can. They plan ahead. They make war and peace. They show empathy. They share.

“It’s not a question of whether they think _ it’s how they think,” says Duke University scientist Brian Hare. Now scientists wonder if apes are capable of thinking about what other apes are thinking.

The evidence that animals are more intelligent and more social than we thought seems to grow each year, especially when it comes to primates. It’s an increasingly hot scientific field with the number of ape and monkey cognition studies doubling in recent years, often with better technology and neuroscience paving the way to unusual discoveries.

This month scientists mapping the DNA of the bonobo ape found that, like the chimp, bonobos are only 1.3 percent different from humans.

Says Josep Call, director of the primate research center at the Max Planck Institute in Germany: “Every year we discover things that we thought they could not do.”

Call says one of his recent more surprising studies showed that apes can set goals and follow through with them.

Orangutans and bonobos in a zoo were offered eight possible tools _ two of which would help them get at some food. At times when they chose the proper tool, researchers moved the apes to a different area before they could get the food, and then kept them waiting as much as 14 hours. In nearly every case, when the apes realized they were being moved, they took their tool with them so they could use it to get food the next day, remembering that even after sleeping. The goal and series of tasks didn’t leave the apes’ minds.

Call says this is similar to a person packing luggage a day before a trip: “For humans it’s such a central ability, it’s so important.”

For a few years, scientists have watched chimpanzees in zoos collect and store rocks as weapons for later use. In May, a study found they even add deception to the mix. They created haystacks to conceal their stash of stones from opponents, just like nations do with bombs.

Hare points to studies where competing chimpanzees enter an arena where one bit of food is hidden from view for only one chimp. The chimp that can see the hidden food, quickly learns that his foe can’t see it and uses that to his advantage, displaying the ability to perceive another ape’s situation. That’s a trait humans develop as toddlers, but something we thought other animals never got, Hare said.

And then there is the amazing monkey memory.

At the National Zoo in Washington, humans who try to match their recall skills with an orangutan’s are humbled. Zoo associate director Don Moore says: “I’ve got a Ph.D., for God’s sake, you would think I could out-think an orang and I can’t.”

In French research, at least two baboons kept memorizing so many pictures _ several thousand _ that after three years researchers ran out of time before the baboons reached their limit. Researcher Joel Fagot at the French National Center for Scientific Research figured they could memorize at least 10,000 and probably more.

And a chimp in Japan named Ayumu who sees strings of numbers flash on a screen for a split-second regularly beats humans at accurately duplicating the lineup. He’s a YouTube sensation, along with orangutans in a Miami zoo that use iPads.

O parto da memória (Fapesp)

HUMANIDADES

Criação tardia de uma Comissão da Verdade mostra como o Brasil enfrenta de modo peculiar o legado de violações dos direitos humanos

FABRÍCIO MARQUES | Edição 196 – Junho de 2012

© ANTONIO LÚCIO / AE. Manifestação pela anistia em São Paulo, em 1979…

O Brasil tem uma trajetória singular no enfrentamento do legado de violações de direitos humanos nos governos militares entre 1964 e 1985. Apenas agora, 27 anos após o retorno do poder aos civis, está sendo criada a Comissão Nacional da Verdade, que nos próximos dois anos colherá depoimentos de vítimas da repressão política e de agentes do Estado acusados de crimes e, ao cabo do trabalho, publicará um relatório narrando oficialmente as circunstâncias das violações e propondo ações para que não voltem a acontecer. A experiência brasileira é singular sob duas perspectivas. De um lado, trata-se da mais tardia das comissões criadas por cerca de 40 países nas últimas décadas para apurar crimes praticados durante ditaduras. De outro, o Brasil é um exemplo incomum de país que tomou diversas iniciativas para reparar crimes, como as indenizações a famílias de mortos pela ditadura e a perseguidos políticos, mas deixou a apuração dos fatos para mais tarde.

Por que o Brasil optou primeiro pelo caminho de reparações financeiras? Esta pergunta norteou a pesquisa de doutorado da cientista política Glenda Mezarobba, defendida na USP em 2008 com bolsa da FAPESP. Uma das conclusões principais de sua pesquisa, fertilizada por uma temporada de seis meses num centro de estudos em Nova York, foi que a Lei da Anistia de 1979 exerceu uma influência muito forte sobre o comportamento tanto dos agentes quanto das vítimas da repressão. Na Argentina, por exemplo, os militares se autoanistiaram pouco antes de entregarem o poder aos civis, em 1983, mas o perdão foi instantaneamente revogado pelo presidente civil, Raúl Alfonsín, pressionado por amplos setores da população que queriam justiça. A trajetória da apuração e das punições na Argentina teria altos e baixos. Houve quarteladas militares e leis, mais tarde revogadas, que determinaram o encerramento dos processos, mas a Justiça seguiu seu curso – hoje, os ex-ditadores Jorge Videla e Reynaldo Bignone cumprem prisão perpétua. Mesmo no Chile, onde a transição foi mediada pelo ex-ditador Augusto Pinochet, aboletado numa cadeira de senador vitalício, acordou-se a convocação de uma Comissão da Verdade e, mais tarde, os crimes acabaram sendo investigados sob pressão internacional. O próprio Pinochet foi mantido em prisão domiciliar em Londres, em 1998, acusado pela Justiça da Espanha de crimes cometidos contra cidadãos do país.

© DANIEL GARCIA / AFP …e passeata das mães da praça de Maio em Buenos Aires, em 1985: os militares do Brasil articularam o esquecimento, mas os da Argentina não resistiram aos pedidos de justiça

Já no Brasil, observa Glenda, a Lei da Anistia serviu de antídoto para neutralizar ânimos mais exigentes. “A anistia era reivindicada desde mea-dos dos anos 1960, se tornou palavra de ordem durante a ditadura e a mobilização que desencadeou no final da década de 1970, com a criação de comitês pela anistia no Brasil e na Europa, é apontada como precursora dos atuais movimentos de defesa dos direitos humanos no Brasil”, diz Glenda, que atualmente é pesquisadora da Universidade Estadual de Campinas e do Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia para Estudos sobre os Estados Unidos (INCT-Ineu), e diretora da área de Humanas da FAPESP. “A Lei da Anistia foi discutida num Congresso cerceado pelos militares e sancionada pelo governo, mas o movimento pela anistia sentiu-se vitorioso. Foi uma lógica muito diferente da observada na Argentina ou no Chile. Lá não havia Congresso ou Parlamento aberto para legitimar a anistia. E ninguém queria perdão, mas justiça”, afirma. Salvo raras exceções, os beneficiados pela Lei da Anistia no Brasil não buscaram a Justiça para identificar e punir seus torturadores. “Num país em que há ‘leis que pegam’ e ‘leis que não pegam’, causa espanto a forma como a Lei da Anistia tem sido interpretada desde a ditadura. É certo que existe margem para a Justiça reinterpretar a Lei da Anistia, que, aliás, não faz menção ao crime de tortura, por exemplo, mas foram pouquíssimas as tentativas de testá-la nos tribunais. Os próprios anistiados têm dificuldade em se enxergar como vítimas e em perceber o Judiciário como a esfera de realização da Justiça”, diz a pesquisadora.

O campo de pesquisa a que Glenda Mezarobba se dedica é o da justiça de transição, que trata de iniciativas e mecanismos judiciais e extrajudiciais adotados por países para enfrentar legados de violações em massa de direitos humanos e referendados por instituições como a Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) e a Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA). Diante da impossibilidade material ou política de levar à Justiça um conjunto muito extenso de crimes, construíram-se estratégias para evitar a impunidade. As punições se concentram em crimes contra a humanidade ou genocídios, a exemplo dos julgamentos de criminosos nazistas após a Segunda Guerra Mundial. No cerne da  justiça de transição está a noção de que os Estados têm ao menos quatro deveres perante a sociedade – o da justiça, o da verdade, o da reparação e o das reformas – e que tais deveres podem ser cumpridos por intermédio de anistias para crimes menores, indenizações, pedidos públicos de desculpas, abertura de arquivos, construção de museus e memoriais, entre outros.

© USHMM. Julgamento de criminosos nazistas em Nuremberg, em 1946: o desafio de julgar e de punir crimes que mataram milhões

E, naturalmente, há o recurso das comissões da verdade, que buscam dar voz às vítimas, resgatar a memória do período de exceção e ajudar a construir o ambiente democrático – sem ter, contudo, poder de punir. “Em determinadas situações, a justiça de transição enfatiza a necessidade de se concentrar a atenção mais explicitamente na restauração do relacionamento entre as vítimas, os perpetradores e a sociedade, em vez da punição”, diz Lucia Elena Arantes Ferreira Bastos, pesquisadora do Núcleo de Estudos da Violência da USP, que no ano passado concluiu um pós-doutorado com bolsa da FAPESP. Essas comissões buscam administrar conflitos que não se encerraram com a passagem de um período de violações em massa de direitos humanos para um governo democrático. A Comissão da Verdade e Reconciliação da África do Sul foi criada em 1993, num período em que confrontos raciais ainda eram frequentes, e buscava transformar a violência em diálogo. Foi fruto de uma longa negociação e procurava reconstruir a memória do período de violência, abrindo-se para depoimentos de vítimas, familiares e agentes repressores. Como o que se procurava era a reconciliação, havia um inédito mecanismo pelo qual os algozes que confessassem seus crimes seriam anistiados. “A maior inovação dos sul-africanos é aquela ligada a um princípio, o da anistia individual e condicional, em oposição às anistias gerais concedidas na América Latina sob pressão dos militares”, diz Luci Buff, autora de uma tese de doutorado em filosofia, defendida em 2007 na PUC de São Paulo, sobre os horizontes do perdão, na qual aborda o exemplo sul-africano. “O objetivo não era o de apagar, encobrir crimes, mas revelar. Os antigos criminosos tiveram a oportunidade de participar da reescritura da história nacional para serem perdoados”, afirmou. O artifício teve eficiência parcial. Houve confissões e anistia para apenas 17% dos crimes apurados pela comissão.

Há, é certo, poucas semelhanças entre a experiência sul-africana e a brasileira, como observa Edson Teles, professor de filosofia da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), campus de Guarulhos, e autor de uma tese de doutorado, com bolsa da FAPESP, sobre a trajetória das políticas de justiça e reparação no Brasil pós-ciclo militar e na África do Sul pós-apartheid. “O Brasil se encontra em momento muito diferente. A ditadura acabou há muito tempo, mas há heranças que precisam ser revistas. A comissão aqui busca a apuração histórica e a reconstrução da memória para obter a transformação política do presente”, afirma Teles, que pertence a uma família de presos políticos no Araguaia. “A nossa Comissão da Verdade igualmente não busca a punição de culpados, mas tem diferenças fundamentais. 
Enquanto a sul-africana é autônoma, a nossa é vinculada à Casa Civil da Presidência da República. É uma diferença relevante porque o que vai ser discutido são crimes de Estado e ainda há dentro do Estado herdeiros do legado de governos anteriores, como se vê nas manifestações das Forças Armadas. Há uma forte pressão, por isso a questão da autonomia é importante.”

© AFP PHOTO. Apoiadores da Comissão da Verdade e Reconciliação da África do Sul, em 1995: anistia para quem confessava

Mas a Comissão da Verdade brasileira pode desempenhar um papel histórico, observa Teles, como na construção de uma memória coletiva sobre o período. “A publicidade dos traumas e dos ressentimentos por meio das narrativas pode contribuir para a consumação do luto e para o aprimoramento dos elos sociais”, afirma. “A oposição entre a razão política pacificadora do Estado e as memórias doloridas sobre a ditadura militar brasileira obstrui a expressão pública da dor e reduz a memória às emoções privadas.” Outra contribuição importante pode ser colhida no campo do aprimoramento das instituições democráticas. Teles lembra que o Brasil ainda mantém leis e legados na estrutura do Estado dos tempos da ditadura e afirma que, na experiência de outros países, comissões da verdade sugeriram reformas nessas estruturas e ajudaram a montar o Estado democrático. “A tortura segue como uma prática corriqueira no aparelho policial brasileiro. Um dos benefícios que a Comissão da Verdade pode trazer é propor reformas das instituições. Isso, se ela tiver êxito em identificar tanto os responsáveis pelos atos criminosos quanto a estrutura que permitiu que esses atos acontecessem.”

Os estudos no campo da justiça de transição são recentes no Brasil. Para fazer sua tese de doutorado, a cientista política Glenda Mezarobba teve de passar seis meses em Nova York, fazendo pesquisa numa entidade que é referência nessa área, o International Center for Transitional Justice. “Havia pouca pesquisa no Brasil naquela época sobre esse tema e sentia falta de interlocutores, que encontrei nos Estados Unidos”, afirma. Na época em que esteve lá, o presidente do centro era o argentino Juan Méndez, que foi advogado de presos políticos na década de 1970, razão pela qual foi ele também preso e torturado, sendo expulso para os Estados Unidos em 1977, quando a organização Anistia Internacional adotou-o como prisioneiro de consciência. Atualmente é o relator especial das Nações Unidas para crimes de tortura. “Eu perguntava a ele sobre a anistia decretada ao final do governo militar na Argentina e ele não via sentido na minha pergunta. Foi aí que eu constatei que no Brasil, ao contrário da Argentina e do Chile, por exemplo, a água tem movimentado mais os moinhos do esquecimento”, afirma. Em Nova York, encontrou vasta bibliografia sobre o assunto, inclusive escrita no Brasil, mas não mais disponível aqui. “Sem ir a Nova York não teria feito a tese”, afirma a pesquisadora. Glenda é autora dos quatro verbetes sobre o Brasil que fazem parte da 1ª enciclopédia de justiça de transição, que a Cambridge University Press lança em dezembro.

© WIKIMEDIA. Refugiados do genocídio em Ruanda, que matou 800 mil em 1994: crimes contra humanidade testam os limites da justiça de transição

Quando, ainda no governo Lula, foi criado um grupo de trabalho para discutir o anteprojeto de lei que criaria a Comissão da Verdade, Glenda foi convidada a assessorar um dos membros do grupo, o cientista político Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, professor da USP e fundador do Núcleo de Estudos sobre a Violência. “O empenho do então ministro dos Direitos Humanos, Paulo Vanucchi, foi fundamental para a criação desse grupo e fizemos, na época, um esforço para aproximar a academia do debate sobre a Comissão da Verdade”, diz Glenda. Antes disso, mas com o mesmo objetivo, ela coordenou, junto com Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, em outubro de 2009, a Conferência Internacional sobre o Direito à Verdade, em São Paulo. O evento de dois dias reuniu pesquisadores de campos como o direito, a ciência política e as relações internacionais, além de autoridades e ativistas dos direitos humanos, vindos do Brasil e do exterior, com apoio da FAPESP. Para Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, nomeado membro da Comissão da Verdade, a experiência das comissões de outros países e o engajamento da academia podem ajudar no trabalho da comissão brasileira. “O Brasil vai beneficiar-se da experiência de diferentes ‘comissões da verdade’ criadas no mundo desde os anos 80. Podemos aprender com comissões recentes, como a do Paraguai; ou do Uruguai, que teve uma grande participação das universidades; ou do Peru”, afirmou à agência BBC.

Uma das observações mais agudas da pesquisa de Glenda Mezarobba sugere que a ditadura brasileira foi mais habilidosa em ‘capturar corações e mentes’ de seus cidadãos do que as congêneres da América Latina. “Isso talvez ajude a entender por que a ditadura do Brasil foi ‘menos sangrenta’ do que a da Argentina e a do Chile. Ela não precisou ser mais sangrenta do que foi”, afirma. A apropriação da bandeira da anistia, transformando-a num dínamo do esquecimento, seria um exemplo dessa habilidade. Glenda também cita a eficiência da ditadura em impedir a entrada no país de observadores da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. “Na Argentina e no Chile o relato dos observadores teve papel fundamental na denúncia de violações de direitos humanos. No Brasil, nossa diplomacia foi ‘eficiente’ ao barrar essas iniciativas”, diz. Da mesma forma, o Brasil foi pouco acionado por tribunais de outros países por crimes cometidos contra seus cidadãos, ao contrário do que aconteceu com Argentina e Chile. “Só houve uma ação, movida na Itália”, afirma Glenda.

© AFP PHOTO. O ex-ditador chileno Augusto Pinochet, detido numa clínica em Londres em 1998: pressão da justiça internacional forçou tribunais chilenos a investigarem crimes

Durante a ditadura no Brasil a luta por anistia foi acompanhada pela defesa e promoção aos direitos humanos, pela volta da democracia e pela punição dos torturadores. Tal bandeira foi levantada por grupos de defesa dos direitos humanos e familiares de mortos e desaparecidos, mas não conseguiu reverberar na sociedade. E a resistência dos militares contra a apuração dos fatos, escorados na Lei da Anistia, prevaleceu. Isso não significa que o Estado brasileiro nada tenha feito no sentido de cumprir, ainda que parcialmente, suas obrigações desde então. Todos os presidentes civis que precederam Dilma Rousseff contribuíram de alguma forma para enfrentar o legado de violações em massa dos direitos humanos. José Sarney assinou os Pactos Internacionais das Nações Unidas sobre Direitos Civis e Políticos e a Convenção contra a Tortura e outros Tratamentos ou Penas Cruéis, Desumanos ou Degradantes. Também durante o governo Sarney – mas sem participação oficial – foi divulgado o projeto Brasil: Nunca Mais (ver box, no final da matéria). Trata-se da mais importante iniciativa já feita até agora para revelar os fatos ligados à violação dos direitos humanos pela repressão política entre 1961 e 1979, por meio da sistematização de informações de processos do Superior Tribunal Militar. No governo Fernando Collor iniciou-se a abertura de alguns arquivos de órgãos estaduais de repressão que estavam sob a guarda da Polícia Federal. Sob a Presidência de Fernando Henrique Cardoso, foi sancionada a Lei dos Mortos e Desaparecidos, que reconhece a responsabilidade do Estado sobre 136 desaparecidos, e criou-se a Comissão de Anistia, que abriu caminho para a reparação financeira de perseguidos políticos que sofreram perdas econômicas em decorrência de atos de repressão política. O governo Lula seguiu pagando reparações e contribuiu com a divulgação de documentos públicos, por meio do portal Memórias Reveladas, do Arquivo Nacional, e com a criação do grupo de trabalho que propôs o anteprojeto da lei que criou a Comissão da Verdade.

A Comissão da Anistia criada no governo Fernando Henrique para garantir reparações financeiras a vítimas da ditadura não foi constituída com propósitos investigativos. “Em nenhum momento a lei que criou a comissão fala em vítimas, mas em ‘anistiados’ ou ‘beneficiados pela anistia’”, diz Glenda. Para garantir a reparação financeira, basta provar a responsabilidade do Estado pela morte de um militante ou pelo prejuízo causado ao perseguido político – assim que isso acontecia, a investigação cessava, sem preocupação de apontar circunstâncias e personagens. “Caso típico de anistia em branco, o modelo de transição brasileiro negligenciou a demanda por esclarecimento dos crimes passados e, duas décadas depois, acolheu um princípio de responsabilidade difusa, legada indistintamente ao Estado, sem identificação de operadores individuais”, escreveram as pesquisadoras Cristina Buarque de Holanda, Vanessa Oliveira Batista e Luciana Boiteux, da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, em artigo publicado em 2010.

© ANTONIO CRUZ/AGÊNCIA BRASIL. Cerimônia de instalação da Comissão da Verdade, em Brasília: 27 anos depois, a decisão de investigar as violações do ciclo militar

Os mecanismos para garantir reparação financeira geraram distorções. “A reparação é necessariamente simbólica, uma vez que não é possível dimensionar materialmente a perda de uma vida ou o sofrimento numa sala de torturas”, observa Glenda Mezarobba. Seguindo exemplos internacionais, a indenização a familiares de mortos e desaparecidos foi arbitrada em cerca de US$ 150 mil. Mas nos processos dos perseguidos políticos, em que se avaliava o prejuízo financeiro causado por demissões ou por exílio, o montante pode chegar à casa dos milhões. “A lei 10.559 foi construída de forma equivocada”, diz a pesquisadora, que entrevistou o ex-presidente Fernando Henrique sobre o assunto para sua tese. “Perguntei por que o Brasil seguiu o caminho das reparações. Ele atribuiu à nossa herança patrimonialista”, diz, referindo-se àquela característica de um Estado que não esboça distinção entre os limites do público e do privado.

O advento da Comissão da Verdade brasileira também pode ser visto como uma resposta à recente pressão internacional contra a resistência do Brasil em apurar os crimes do período militar – em 2010, por exemplo, o Brasil foi condenado pela Corte Interamericana dos Direitos Humanos da Organização dos Estados Americanos por não ter punido os responsáveis pelas mortes e desaparecimentos ocorridos na Guerrilha do Araguaia. O tribunal concluiu que o Estado brasileiro é responsável pelo desaparecimento de 62 pessoas, ocorrido entre 1972 e 1974, e determinou que sejam feitos todos os esforços para localizar os corpos. “A postura negacionista do Brasil chocou-se com a guinada do direito internacional acerca das violências cometidas por Estados”, diz Lucia Bastos, que é autora de uma tese de doutorado sobre as leis de anistia em face do direito internacional. Em 2005, a ONU aprovou um conjunto de princípios sobre o direito das vítimas de violações dos direitos humanos, que estabeleceu diretrizes para reparações. “Sentenças e documentos de instâncias como a Corte Interamericana dos Direitos Humanos passaram a apontar enfaticamente no sentido de considerar ilegais as anistias em branco e de chancelar mecanismos extrajudiciais capazes de combater a impunidade e reconciliar a sociedade. Eles formam os pilares da justiça de transição e foram erguidos não apenas a partir da teoria, mas também das experiências concretas”, afirma a pesquisadora.

Lucia observa que a adoção de mecanismos de justiça de transição vem se consolidando desde o fim da Guerra Fria. “Em duas décadas, comissões da verdade se multiplicaram, houve um desenvolvimento sem precedentes no que diz respeito à justiça internacional penal e nunca existiram antes tantos pedidos de desculpa e concessão de reparações a vítimas de violações de direitos humanos”, diz Lucia. “Mas a justiça de transição deparou-se com fatos contraditórios, divididos entre momentos de esperança e tragédia, que aqueceram o debate a respeito de qual seria a melhor forma de se alcançar a reconciliação, se uma política de perdão ou de punição”, afirma. Do lado da esperança, houve o colapso das ditaduras comunistas, o fim do apartheid na África do Sul e a consolidação das democracias na América Latina. Do lado trágico, houve o genocídio em Ruanda e a limpeza étnica na ex-Iugoslávia. “Atualmente, a justiça internacional trabalha com ambas as proposições, tanto os mecanismos extrajudiciais para a reconstrução da sociedade como as punições.”

Brasil: Nunca Mais on-line

© FOLHAPRESS. Dom Paulo Evaristo Arns…

Estão sendo digitalizados os documentos do projeto Brasil: Nunca Mais, iniciativa liderada pelo cardeal católico dom Paulo Evaristo Arns e o pastor presbiteriano Jaime Wright que gerou a mais importante documentação sobre a repressão política no Brasil entre 1961 e 1979. No horizonte de um ano, os documentos estarão disponíveis para consulta na internet. A digitalização está sendo feita pelo Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo, a partir de microfilmes guardados nos Estados Unidos. O Arquivo Edgard Leuenrouth (AEL), da Unicamp, que abriga a coleção de documentos, está conferindo a versão digitalizada e sanando eventuais falhas, fornecendo processos que não foram microfilmados. Nessa fase do processo, o AEL utiliza equipamentos adquiridos por meio do Programa de Infraestrutura da FAPESP, que viabilizou investimentos de cerca de R$ 590 mil no Arquivo. “Estamos em fase de conferência e de tratamento de imagens”, diz Alvaro Bianchi, diretor do AEL e professor de ciência política da Unicamp. Desde 1987, a Unicamp abriga a coleção de documentos, que reúne mais de 1 milhão de páginas contidas em 707 processos do Superior Tribunal Militar (STM) e seus 10 mil anexos.

Os documentos foram obtidos de forma quase clandestina por um grupo de 30 ativistas dos direitos humanos. Alguns deles optaram pelo anonimato. Entre 1979 e 1985, essa equipe consultou e gerou cópias de processos no STM que continham, por exemplo, as denúncias de torturas apresentadas pelos presos políticos nos tribunais. “Sua publicação precedeu a divulgação de uma lista com o nome de 444 torturadores, mas nem o livro nem a identificação dos agentes despertaram reação em grande escala pelo fim da impunidade aos acusados de violar direitos humanos”, diz a cientista política Glenda Mezarobba. Tornou-se uma espécie de versão oficial dos fatos, embora tenha sido feito à revelia do governo. Segundo Alvaro Bianchi, o Brasil: Nunca Mais é uma das coleções mais consultadas do AEL. Serviu de base para muitos estudos e teses sobre a história da esquerda, a resistência ao governo militar e o movimento estudantil, mas foi pouco aproveitado para estudos sobre direitos humanos. “O interesse principal dos pesquisadores tem sido os documentos apreendidos que foram anexados aos processos. Eles constituem uma fonte de informações de difícil obtenção”, afirma.

© FOLHAPRESS …e Jaime Wright: à revelia do governo, operação para reunir a mais importante documentação sobre repressão política

Faculdade de Direito recomenda cotas na USP (OESP)

01 de junho de 2012 | 10h 00

AE – Agência Estado

A Faculdade de Direito do Largo São Francisco, a unidade mais tradicional da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), aprovou ontem, por “aclamação” (unanimidade), recomendação para que a USP adote cotas raciais. A declaração, que deve seguir para o Conselho Universitário, pode ser o primeiro passo para que a instituição comece a discutir esse tipo de ação afirmativa.

A recomendação foi votada na Congregação da faculdade, que reúne professores e alunos. A reunião teve a participação de representantes do movimento negro, que defenderam as cotas. “Esse é um passo muito importante porque reconhece que o debate sobre cotas está amadurecido e que os programas da USP não alteram a desigualdade entre brancos e negros”, afirma Clyton Borges, do movimento Uneafro Brasil. A Uneafro faz parte da Frente Pró-Cotas, que reúne 70 organizações do movimento negro e fomentou a discussão.

A USP não adota sistema de cotas ou mesmo bonificação para negros no vestibular. A universidade mantém apenas um programa de inclusão para estudantes da rede pública e o considera satisfatório. Mesmo após o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) decidir pela legalidade das cotas, fortalecendo o debate do tema, a USP não cogitou discutir o tema.

Para o professor de Direito Marcus Orione, é simbólico que a primeira declaração oficial pelas cotas na USP tenha saído do Largo São Francisco. “A decisão nos faz resgatar a história da faculdade em defesa da democracia. Temos uma unidade onde não há negros.” As informações são do jornal O Estado de S.Paulo.

Educational Games to Train Middle Schoolers’ Attention, Empathy (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (May 21, 2012) — Two years ago, at a meeting on science and education, Richard Davidson challenged video game manufacturers to develop games that emphasize kindness and compassion instead of violence and aggression.

With a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the University of Wisconsin-Madison professor is now answering his own call. With Kurt Squire, an associate professor in the School of Education and director of the Games Learning Society Initiative, Davidson received a $1.39 million grant this spring to design and rigorously test two educational games to help eighth graders develop beneficial social and emotional skills — empathy, cooperation, mental focus, and self-regulation.

“By the time they reach the eighth grade, virtually every middle-class child in the Western world is playing smartphone apps, video games, computer games,” says Davidson, the William James and Vilas Research Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at UW-Madison. “Our hope is that we can use some of that time for constructive purposes and take advantage of the natural inclination of children of that age to want to spend time with this kind of technology.”

The project grew from the intersection of Davidson’s research on the brain bases of emotion, Squire’s expertise in educational game design, and the Gates Foundation’s interest in preparing U.S. students for college readiness-possessing the skills and knowledge to go on to post-secondary education without the need for remediation.

“Skills of mindfulness and kindness are very important for college readiness,” Davidson explains. “Mindfulness, because it cultivates the capacity to regulate attention, which is the building block for all kinds of learning; and kindness, because the ability to cooperate is important for everything that has to do with success in life, team-building, leadership, and so forth.”

He adds that social, emotional, and interpersonal factors influence how students use and apply their cognitive abilities.

Building on research from the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds at UW-Madison’s Waisman Center, the initial stage of the project will focus on designing prototypes of two games. The first game will focus on improving attention and mental focus, likely through breath awareness.

“Breathing has two important characteristics. One is that it’s very boring, so if you’re able to attend to that, you can attend to most other things,” Davidson says. “The second is that we’re always breathing as long as we’re alive, and so it’s an internal cue that we can learn to come back to. This is something a child can carry with him or her all the time.”

The second game will focus on social behaviors such as kindness, compassion, and altruism. One approach may be to help students detect and interpret emotions in others by reading non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, tone of voice, and body posture.

“We’ll use insights gleaned from our neuroscience research to design the games and will look at changes in the brain during the performance of these games to see how the brain is actually affected by them,” says Davidson. “Direct feedback from monitoring the brain while students are playing the games will help us iteratively adjust the game design as this work goes forward.”

Their analyses will include neural imaging and behavioral testing before, during, and after students play the games, as well as looking at general academic performance.

The results will help the researchers determine how the games impact students and whether educational games are a useful medium for teaching these behaviors and skills, as well as evaluate whether certain groups of kids benefit more than others.

“Our hope is that we can begin to address these questions with the use of digital games in a way that can be very easily scaled and, if we are successful, to potentially reach an extraordinarily large number of youth,” says Davidson.

Wrongful Convictions Can Be Reduced Through Science, but Tradeoffs Exist (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2012) — Many of the wrongful convictions identified in a report this week hinged on a misidentified culprit — and a new report in a top journal on psychological science reveals the paradox of reforms in eyewitness identification procedure. In our efforts to make sure that good guys don’t get locked up, we could let more bad guys go.

In the May issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, leading scholars in psychology and the law explore and debate various aspects of eyewitness identification procedures, providing a scientific foundation for this important social issue.

In recent years, researchers and policymakers have called for specific reforms to eyewitness identification procedures that would help to reduce the rate of false identification. These reforms affect various aspects of identification procedure, including how lineups are constructed, what witnesses are told prior to the lineup, and how police officers should behave during the procedure.

Such procedural reforms are often viewed as having ‘no cost’ — they reduce the false identification rate without affecting the correct identification rate. But psychological scientist Steven Clark (University of California, Riverside) argues that ‘no cost’ view may not actually be true. After extensive review of the existing data, Clark points out the paradoxical tradeoffs to reforms in eyewitness identification procedure. Existing data suggest that when we choose to enact reforms that are designed to reduce false identifications, we may also reduce the number of correct identifications at the same time.

But this tradeoff does not tell the whole story, say Gary Wells (Iowa State University), Nancy Steblay (Augsburg College), and Jennifer Dysart (John Jay College of Criminal Justice). While reform procedures may reduce the number of ‘hits,’ they do so by minimizing the influence of suggestive and coercive practices, such as biased instructions and cues from lineup administrators. Wells and his co-authors argue that the so-called ‘lost’ hits aren’t actually relevant, because hits that result from suggestive practices are not legitimate identifications. Eryn Newman from Victoria University of Wellington and Elizabeth Loftus from the University of California, Irvine agree, arguing that eyewitness identification evidence should be based solely on the independent memory of the witness, not on the results of suggestive or coercive procedures.

There is, however, a scientifically valid way to compare witness-identification procedures, say John Wixted and Laura Mickes, both of the University of California, San Diego. If we identify the procedures that reliably differentiate between innocent and guilty suspects over time and across different situations, we will be able to determine which techniques are diagnostically superior to others.

Until we have such comprehensive data, the best way to protect innocent defendants, says Larry Laudan of the University of Texas, is by clearly communicating the fact that eyewitness identifications, regardless of their format, are fallible. According to Laudan, we now have enough empirical data to be able to inform jurors about the error profiles of various eyewitness identification procedures. Sharing this information, he argues, is more important than trying to arrive at “the one unique and definitive format for conducting identifications.”

In the end, Clark points out that the goal of his article is not to argue for or against any particular witness identification procedure. Rather, he hopes to create strong links between social science data and public policy. “To the extent that social science research has a useful role in shaping policy decisions,” says Clark, “social scientists must do for policymakers what they do best and what policymakers cannot do for themselves: conduct careful studies, and provide a clear and complete analysis of the empirical data.”

  • Steven E. Clark et al. “Costs and Benefits of Eyewitness Identification Reform: Psychological Science and Public Policy,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, May 2012
  • Nancy K. Steblay et al., “Eyewitness Identification Reforms: Are Suggestiveness-Induced Hits and Guesses True Hits?”Perspectives on Psychological Science, May 2012
  • Elizabeth F. Loftus et al., “Clarkian Logic on Trial,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, May 2012
  • John T. Wixted et al., “The Field of Eyewitness Memory Should Abandon Probative Value and Embrace Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, May 2012
  • Larry Laudan et al. “Eyewitness Identifications: One More Lesson on the Costs of Excluding Relevant Evidence,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, May 2012

Conflict abounds in climate education (The Daily Climate)

Teachers are loath to teach climate science because it exposes them to charges of politicizing the classroom. They have reason to be cautious.

By Lisa Palmer
For the Daily Climate

The battles over teaching climate change science in schools are diverse, myriad and, like teaching evolution, being fought mostly district by district, classroom by classroom.

No-150Unlike evolution, climate change doesn’t have a U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring that teaching efforts be accurate.

Some recent conflicts around the nation:

  • This spring the Tennessee Legislature passed a bill, with broad, bi-partisan support, to protect teachers who do not agree with accepted climate science and want to teach alternative explanations. Gov. Bill Haslam, acknowledging the veto-proof majority in a press release, allowed the bill to become law without his signature but noted that the measure won’t change state education standards.
  • Last year the southern California town of Los Alamitos, the school board passed but then rescinded a policy identifying climate science as a controversial topic requiring special instructional oversight.
  • Earlier this year an Oklahoma House committee approved a bill permitting teachers to review “scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories” such as evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning. It remains stuck in the Senate, with the Legislature adjourning this week.
  • A 2007 study found that 20 percent of Colorado’s earth science teachers disagreed that “recent global warming is caused mostly by things people do,” while nearly half agreed that “there is substantial disagreement among scientists about the cause of recent global warming.” Meanwhile in Mesa County, in western Colorado, tea party activists tried to prohibit the teaching of manmade climate change.
  • An earth science teacher in Clifton Park, N.Y., taught a global warming unit but inserted his own view that climate change is not caused by humans. A parent complained, pointing to the New York State Regents science standards, considered among the best in the nation. The teacher relented after the school’s science administrator clarified what was expected according to the standards.

Earlier this year the National Center for Science Education stepped into the climate arena, announcing it would apply techniques it honed in the evolution wars to defend and promote climate science education.

McCaffrey-150“It’s one thing to have climate in the standards and assessments, and another thing altogether to make sure the teachers are well prepared, are not teaching the debate, if they teach about climate change at all, and are using effective practices,” said Mark McCaffrey, the center’s program director. 

The Oakland-based nonprofit’s effort hit a snag in February after Peter Gleick, a prominent scientist recruited to help advise the organization’s climate education effort, disclosed that he had improperly obtained internal strategy documents from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank. Gleick withdrew his nomination to the NCSE’s board a few days before his term was scheduled to begin.

But the Heartland memos show that the institute, known for undermining climate science in political and scientific arenas, is working to influence climate education in schools, too. The budget memos Gleick obtained indicated the group had raised an initial $100,000 for a “global warming curriculum” designed by a part-time consultant at the Department of Energy.

The curriculum, designed for grades 10 through 12, according to the Heartland memos, would emphasize that climate change is a “major scientific controversy” and that models underlying the science are questionable.

Lisa Palmer is a freelance reporter in Maryland. Her work has appeared in Scientific American, Nature Climate Change, Fortune, and The Yale Forum, among other outlets. DailyClimate.org is a foundation-funded news service that covers climate change.

Photos: “No” icon created by Paula Spence for the National Center for Science Education. Photo of Mark McCaffrey courtesy NCSE.

Heartland Institute facing uncertain future as staff depart and cash dries up (The Guardian)

Free-market thinktank’s conference opens in Chicago with president admitting defections are hurting group’s finances

, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 May 2012 17.09 BST

Leo blog : The Heartland Institute conference billboard in Chicago

The billboard ads comparing climate change believers to the Unabomber Ted Kaczunski. Photograph: The Heartland Institute

The first Heartland Institute conference on climate change in 2008 had all the trappings of a major scientific conclave – minus large numbers of real scientists. Hundreds of climate change contrarians, with a few academics among them, descended into the banquet rooms of a lavish Times Square hotel for what was purported to be a reasoned debate about climate change.

But as the latest Heartland climate conference opens in a Chicago hotel on Monday, the thinktank’s claims to reasoned debate lie in shreds and its financial future remains uncertain.

Heartland’s claims to “stay above the fray” of the climate wars was exploded by a billboard campaign earlier this month comparing climate change believers to the Unabomer Ted Kaczynski, and a document sting last February that revealed a plan to spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change.

Along with the damage to its reputation, Heartland’s financial future is also threatened by an exodus of corporate donors as well as key members of staff.

In a fiery blogpost on the Heartland website, the organisation’s president Joseph Bast admitted Heartland’s defectors were “abandoning us in this moment of need”.

Over the last few weeks, Heartland has lost at least $825,000 in expected funds for 2012, or more than 35% of the funds its planned to raise from corporate donors, according to the campaign group Forecast the Facts, which is pushing companies to boycott the organisation.

The organisation has been forced to make up those funds by taking its first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry. The main Illinois coal lobby is a last-minute sponsor of this week’s conference, undermining Heartland’s claims to operate independently of fossil fuel interests.

Its entire Washington DC office, barring one staffer, decamped, taking Heartland’s biggest project, involving the insurance industry, with them.

Board directors quit, conference speakers cancelled at short-notice, and associates of long standing demanded Heartland remove their names from its website. The list of conference sponsors shrank by nearly half from 2010, and many of those listed sponsors are just websites operating on the rightwing fringe.

“It’s haemorrhaging,” said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, who has spent years tracking climate contrarian outfits. “Heartland’s true colours finally came through, and now people are jumping ship in quick order.”

It does not look like Heartland is about to adopt a corrective course of action.

In his post, Bast defended the ads, writing: “Our billboard was factual: the Unabomber was motivated by concern over man-made global warming to do the terrible crimes he committed.” He went on to describe climate scientist Michael Mann and activist Bill McKibben as “madmen”.

The public unravelling of Heartland began last February when the scientist Peter Gleick lied to obtain highly sensitive materials, including a list of donors.

The publicity around the donors’ list made it difficult for companies with public commitment to sustainability, such as the General Motors Foundation, to continue funding Heartland. The GM Foundation soon announced it was ending its support of $15,000 a year.

But what had been a gradual collapse gathered pace when Heartland advertised its climate conference with a billboard on a Chicago expressway comparing believers in climate science to the Unabomber.

The slow trickle of departing corporate donors turned into a gusher.

Even Heartland insiders, such as Eli Lehrer, who headed the organisation’s Washington group, found the billboard too extreme. Lehrer, who headed the biggest project within Heartland, on insurance, immediately announced his departure along with six other staff.

“The ad was ill advised,” he said. “I’m a free-market conservative with a long rightwing resumé and most, if not all, of my team fits the same description and of us found it very problematic. Staying with Heartland was simply not workable in the wake of this billboard.”

Heartland took down the billboard within 24 hours, but by then the ad had gone viral.

Lehrer, who maintains the split was amicable, said the billboard had undermined Heartland’s claims to be a serious conservative thinktank.

“It didn’t reflect the seriousness which I want to bring to public policy,” Lehrer said in the telephone interview. “As somebody who deals mostly with insurance I believe all risk have to be taken seriously and there certainly are some important climate and global warming related risks that must be taken account of in the insurance market. Trivialising them is not consistent with free-market thought. Suggesting they are only thought about by people who are crazy is not good for the free market.”

Other Heartland allies came to a similar conclusion. In a letter to Heartland announcing he was backing out from the conference, Ross McKitrick, a Canadian economist wrote: “You can not simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.”

A number of other experts meanwhile began cutting their ties with Heartland, according to a tally kept by a Canadian blogger BigCityLiberal.

Meanwhile, there was growing anger that Bast failed to consult with colleagues before ordering up the Kaczynski attack ads.

Four board members told the Guardian they had not been consulted in advance about the ad. “I did not have prior approval of the billboard and was in favor of discontinuing the billboard when I was made aware of it,” Jeff Judson, a Texas lobbyist and board member wrote in an email.

Could the turmoil and discontent at Heartland eventually prove its undoing? Campaigners would certainly hope so. “We are watching the consequences of organisation that acts quite randomly and that is actually an extremist organisation in the end,” said Davies. “They are not built to be at the hump of the climate denial movement.”

But while more mainstream corporate entities are deserting Heartland, others are stepping into the breach, including the coal lobby and conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation.

Both the Illinois Coal Association and Heritage stepped in to fund this week’s conference, after other corporate donors began backing out in protest at the offensive Kaczynski ad.

Meanwhile, a Greenpeace analysis of the other smaller conference sponsors suggests they have collectively received $5m in funds from Exxon and other oil companies.

The Coal Association and Heritage were not listed on the original conference sponsor list, but appeared to come in about a week or so after the appearance of the offending Kaczynski ad.

Phil Gonet, the chief lobbyist for the 20 coal companies in the association, said he had no qualms about stepping in to fund the Heartland conference.

“We support the work they are doing and so we thought we would finally make a contribution to the organisation,” he said, calling criticism of the ad “moot”, “pointless” and “absurd”.

Gonet went on: “I made a contribution mainly in support of a conference that is designed to make balanced information available to the public on the issue of global warming … In general, the message of the Heartland Institute is something the Illinois Coal Association supports.”

Perspective: Troubled by Interdisciplinarity? (Science)

Career Advice

By Stephanie PfirmanMelissa Begg

April 06, 2012

Do program managers and senior faculty tell you “that idea is not really in my bailiwick, and I’m not sure where else to send you”? Do you spend more time choosing a publication venue than writing your paper? Are you asked to be on committees and panels to provide a “fresh perspective” — and then told you spend too much time on service? Is your e-mail full of correspondence about how to handle overhead, subawards, and subcontracts on collaborative proposals?

If any of these descriptions apply to you, you may be suffering from the pain and inconvenience of interdisciplinarity, one of the fastest-growing problems among researchers today. It’s not a problem that goes away on its own. Rather, it festers if it’s not addressed, diminishing creativity and productivity.

Despite the pain and inconvenience, increasing numbers of scientists are pursuing interdisciplinary career paths, and a growing proportion of research funding opportunities from federal granting agencies is interdisciplinary. In May 2011, 30% to 40% of all requests for proposals from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health explicitly required an interdisciplinary approach.

Interdisciplinarity can be wonderfully rich and rewarding, but there are dangers attendant to choosing this non-traditional route. Interdisciplinary scholars go “out on a limb” and “often must fight for identity, recognition, roles, legitimacy, and standing.” This takes a personal — as well as a professional — toll: While the status of their peers grows with accomplishments within the disciplinary community, interdisciplinary scholars have to “live without the comfort of expertise” and often without the comfort of community. Scholars report that they no longer fit in as well after they leave their disciplinary base.

This connection between research direction and community fit is supported by the 2003 Faculty Worklife Survey conducted by the University of Wisconsin, Madison’s Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute. The belief that their colleagues did not perceive their research to be “mainstream” left people feeling more negative about colleagues’ valuation of their research, their respect in the workplace, departmental decision-making, informal departmental interactions, and overall isolation and “fit.”

The messages from a number of recent publications can be distilled to this: Interdisciplinary research doesn’t fit into traditional academic structures. Therefore, if you choose this route, the onus is on you to take additional steps to become aware of the pitfalls and prepare yourself to succeed in this arena.

What kinds of steps are we talking about? Our recommendations include building skills for interdisciplinary collaboration, extending your mentorship team, bolstering your interdisciplinary CV for disciplinary review, and preparing for the complications of writing and submitting interdisciplinary grant proposals.

Recommendations for interdisciplinary scholars

Prepare yourself for new ways of working, thinking, and interacting.

• Specialize within your interdisciplinary research area. Avoid the tendency of many interdisciplinary scholars to branch out too quickly and in too many directions, which can diffuse your impact.

• Focus on your disciplinary strength and skills. It may sound counterintuitive, but in many situations your value as an interdisciplinary colleague is directly proportional to your skills in your own discipline. Keep up with the latest literature and theoretical developments in your disciplinary field so that you will be prepared to apply new knowledge and skills in diverse areas.

• Build core competencies that sustain interdisciplinary research by taking courses or learning on your own. For example, you could take courses that use the case study method to enhance interdisciplinary skills or include practice reviewing interdisciplinary papers and proposals.

• Attend seminars and workshops in other disciplines. Participating in research seminars outside your own department is a great way to expand your thinking, add a new batch of colleagues to your network, and develop expertise in new research areas.

• Seek new mentorship. The old model of one scholar, one mentor is fast becoming a distant memory. Find a mentor or two from beyond your field to help broaden your mindset and approaches.

When preparing manuscripts and grant applications, enhance your credibility as a successful researcher whose work crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries.

• Include a cover letter with your paper or proposal that highlights its interdisciplinary nature and suggests reviewers with complementary expertise so that all of your research aims receive appropriate review.

• Frame research aims to satisfy the needs of both disciplinary-leaning reviewers and interdisciplinary-eager granting agencies. Incorporating conceptual models and grounding your ideas within the disciplines establishes common ground with diverse reviewers.

• Involve respected colleagues with expertise in the techniques you plan to use.

• Try to have at least one publication in each field in which you propose to work. If the work requires an area you haven’t published in, get a letter of support from a well-known investigator in that field offering assistance.

• Start early on budget preparation for collaborative proposals. Most interdisciplinary endeavors are collaborative — and collaborative grant activities have financial implications, with potential revenue losses to departments due to diversion of overhead costs to other units. It may sound like a minor issue, but the most aggravating problem identified in the 2004 report of the National Academies Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (CFIR) was the logistics of interdisciplinary research: budget control, institutional cost recovery, space, unit reporting, and award agreements. More than 40% of scholars and provosts picked one of these as the top impediment to interdisciplinary projects. A recent study found that faculty and administrators at universities with overhead-sharing policies reported satisfaction with their policies, and most felt that they indeed helped to foster interdisciplinary science.

• Use the Kulage study to support budget negotiations. Your colleagues and administrators may be resistant at first to innovations like overhead sharing, so showing them evidence of the effectiveness of overhead sharing may help you close the deal and reach an agreement that recognizes and rewards the contributions of the interdisciplinary collaborators involved in your proposal.

It’s never too early to start thinking about tenure and promotion. You need to plan for a portfolio that withstands the scrutiny of discipline-oriented review committees while also allowing you to pursue interdisciplinary interests. You can take steps to prepare yourself for rigorous evaluation by disciplinary and interdisciplinary reviewers.

• Annotate your CV to explain your contributions to collaborative publications and grants. While this task may seem onerous, if you don’t do it, people have to guess, and they often guess wrong. Increasingly, journals require people to clarify their roles in publications, and some institutions now require that CVs articulate not only specific roles but also the percentage of effort devoted to various activities. Use such policies to your advantage.

• Ground your research statement. As with proposals, incorporating conceptual models and explaining connections to key disciplinary theories and approaches helps to contextualize your work for reviewers with diverse backgrounds.

• Seek a spectrum of reviewers. If asked to suggest reviewers to evaluate your work and advise your tenure or promotion review panel, be sure to include experts from multiple departments or from outside of the institution. Choose experts who can address the particular research areas you work in. For example, you might propose one letter writer who could attest to your disciplinary strength. Another might emphasize how another field is using your research. This could broaden the perspective of the review panel and permit consideration of less traditional CVs.

If you’re on the job market, look for institutions and departments that really value interdisciplinarity. In 2004, more than 10% of scholars identified “strategic plans” as the top impediment to interdisciplinary research. Seven years later, some institutions are finally tackling this: Take a look at the case studies of Ohio University and Macalester College in the National Council for Science and the Environment report. Fostering interdisciplinarity is a strategic decision at the institutional level, but integration of interdisciplinarity into departmental missions is key. Check to see if these pieces are in place at the institution you’re thinking of working for. You can use the NIH template for interdisciplinary offer letters as a mental checklist as you discuss expectations with the chair of the search. You don’t want to come across as too demanding, but having this model letter in mind will help you think of questions to ask about the position.

When push comes to shove, department chairs and supervisors often look askance at activities they perceive to be “extra-departmental.” As noted in a 2011 article in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences,

There is a significant and growing need for interdisciplinary … scholars to develop, teach, and apply successful problem-solving approaches and to educate the next generation of scholars and professionals. Yet such professionals often work in departments where most of their colleagues are disciplinarians and the reward and incentive system is based on disciplines or is at best multidisciplinary. They need diverse strategies and support to overcome the many difficulties that they face day to day in research, teaching, and administration, as well as over the course of their careers.

Increasingly, institutions are addressing what is perhaps the single most vexing problem identified by the 2004 CFIR report: promotion criteria, which 15% of provosts and faculty members identified as the top impediment. Some institutions have turned to using the Boyer criteria of discovery, integration, application, and teaching, rather than focusing mainly on discovery (often with passing reference to teaching). Beyond these traditional criteria, Boyer’s “integration” criterion, in particular, is important in the evaluation of interdisciplinary research. “Application” can also be important. These are all positive signs that smoother sailing may be ahead.

Interdisciplinary research is laudable and undeniably enriching. But until academia’s reward system catches up to its desire for interdisciplinary collaboration, researchers — especially early-career investigators — must take additional steps to prepare for and protect themselves from choppy waters ahead.

References

Boyer E.L. (1990) Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Jossey-Bass, New York

Clark, S.G., M.M. Steen-Adams, S. Pfirman, R.L. Wallace (2011) Professional Development of Interdisciplinary Environmental Scholars, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

Collins, J.P. (2002). May you live in interesting times: Using multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary programs to cope with change in the life sciences. BioScience 52:75-83.

Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (2004). Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine.

Heemskerk, M., K. Wilson, and M. Pavao-Zuckerman. 2003. Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conservation Ecology 7(3): 8. [online]

Kulage, K.M., E.L. Larson, and M.D. Begg (2011). Sharing facilities and administrative cost recovery to facilitate interdisciplinary research. Academic Medicine 86: 394-401.

Larson, E.L., T.F. Landers, and M.D. Begg (2011) Building Interdisciplinary Research Models: A Didactic Course to Prepare Interdisciplinary Scholars and Faculty. Clinical and Translational Science (4)1: 38–41.

Lattuca, L.R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Pfirman, S. and P. Martin (2010). Fostering Interdisciplinary Scholars. Chapter in Oxford Handbook on Interdisciplinarity, Editors: R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein, and C. Mitcham, Oxford University Press, 624 pp.

Pfirman, S.; Martin, P.; Danielson, A.; Goodman, R.M.; Steen-Adams, M.; Waggett, C.; Mutter, J.; Rikakis, T.; Fletcher, M.; Berry, L.; Hornbach, D.; Hempel, M.; Morehouse, B.; Southard, R. (2011). Interdisciplinary Hiring and Career Development: Guidance for Individuals and Institutions. National Council for Science and the Environment.

Porter, A.L., Cohen, A.S., Roessner, J.D., and Perreault, M. (2007) Measuring Researcher Interdisciplinarity, Scientometrics, 72(1): 117-147

WISELI (2003) Study of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Stephanie Pfirman is Hirschorn Professor and co-chair of the environmental science department at Barnard College and a member of Columbia University’s Earth Institute faculty, both in New York City. Melissa Begg is Professor and Vice Dean for Education at the Mailman School of Public Health and Co-Director of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research at Columbia University in New York.
10.1126/science.caredit.a1200040

José Goldemberg: Cotas raciais – quem ganha, quem perde? (OESP)

JC e-mail 4501, de 21 de Maio de 2012.

José Goldemberg é professor emérito da Universidade de São Paulo. Artigo publicado no jornal O Estado de São Paulo de hoje (21).

O Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) decidiu recentemente, por unanimidade, que a introdução de cotas raciais no acesso às universidades públicas federais não viola a Constituição da República, seguindo a linha adotada nos Estados Unidos há algumas décadas de introduzir “ações afirmativas” para corrigir injustiças feitas no passado. A decisão flexibiliza a ideia básica de que todos são iguais perante a lei, um dos grandes objetivos da Revolução Francesa.

Ela se origina na visão de que é preciso aceitar a “responsabilidade histórica” dos malefícios causados pela escravidão e compensar, em parte, as vítimas e seus descendentes. A mesma ideia permeia negociações entre países, entre ex-colônias e as nações industrializadas, na área comercial e até nas negociações sobre o clima.

Sucede que, de modo geral, “compensar” povos ou grupos sociais por violências, discriminações e até crimes cometidos no passado raramente ocorreu ao longo da História. Um bom exemplo é o verdadeiro “holocausto” resultante da destruição dos Impérios Inca e Asteca, na América Latina, ou até da destruição de Cartago pelos romanos, que nunca foram objeto de compensações. Se o fossem, a Espanha deveria estar compensando até hoje o que Hernán Cortez fez ao conquistar o México e destruir o Império Asteca.

É perfeitamente aceitável e desejável que grupos discriminados, excluídos ou perseguidos devam ser objeto de tratamento especial pelos setores mais privilegiados da sociedade e do próprio Estado, por meio de assistência social, educação, saúde e criação de oportunidades. Contudo, simplificar a gravidade dos problemas econômicos e sociais que afligem parte da população brasileira, sobretudo os descendentes de escravos, estabelecendo cotas raciais para acesso às universidades públicas do País, parece-nos injustificado e contraprodutivo, porque revela uma falta de compreensão completa do papel que essas instituições de ensino representam.

Universidades públicas e gratuitas atendem apenas a um terço dos estudantes que fazem curso superior no Brasil, que é uma rota importantíssima para a progressão social e o sucesso profissional. As demais universidades são pagas, o que prejudica a parte mais pobre da população estudantil. Essa é uma distorção evidente do sistema universitário do País. Mas o custo do ensino superior é tão elevado que apenas países ricos como a França, a Suécia ou a Alemanha podem oferecer ensino superior gratuito para todos. Não é o nosso caso. Essa é a razão por que existem vestibulares nas universidades públicas, onde a seleção era feita exclusivamente pelo mérito até recentemente.

A decisão recente do Supremo Tribunal Federal deixa de reconhecer o mérito como único critério para admissão em universidades públicas. E abre caminho para a adoção de outras cotas, além das raciais, talvez, no futuro.

Acontece que o sistema universitário tem sérios problemas de qualidade e desempenho, como bem o demonstra o resultado dos exames da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) – garantia da qualidade dos profissionais dessa área -, que reprova sistematicamente a maioria dos que se submetem a ele, o mesmo ocorrendo com os exames na área médica.

Órgãos do governo como a Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes), do Ministério da Educação, ou o Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), do Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, têm feito esforços para melhorar o desempenho das universidades brasileiras por meio de complexos processos de avaliação, que têm ajudado, mas não se mostraram suficientes.

Esses são mecanismos externos às universidades. Na grande maioria delas, os esforços internos são precários em razão da falta de critérios e de empenho do Ministério da Educação, que escolhe os reitores, alguns dos quais, como os da Universidade de Brasília, iniciaram o processo de criação de cotas raciais como se esse fosse o principal problema das universidades e do ensino superior no Brasil.

O populismo que domina muitas dessas universidades, há décadas, é a principal razão do baixo desempenho das universidades brasileiras na classificação mundial. Somente a Universidade de São Paulo (USP) conseguiu colocar-se entre as melhores 50 nesse ranking.

O problema urgente das universidades brasileiras é, portanto, melhorar de nível, e não resolver problemas de discriminação racial ou corrigir “responsabilidades históricas”, que só poderão ser solucionadas por meio do progresso econômico e educacional básico.

O governo federal parece ter tomado consciência desse problema ao lançar o programa Ciência sem Fronteiras, que se propõe a enviar ao exterior, anualmente, milhares de estudantes universitários, imitando o que o Japão fez no século 19 ou a China no século 20 e foi a base da modernização e do rápido progresso desses países.

Daí o desapontamento com a decisão da Suprema Corte não só por ter sido unânime, mas também por não ter sido objeto de uma tomada de posição de muitos intelectuais formadores de opinião, exceto notáveis exceções, como Eunice R. Durham, Simon Schwartzman, Demétrio Magnoli e poucos outros que se manifestaram sobre a inconveniência da decisão.

O único aspecto positivo na decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal foi o de que simplesmente aceitou a constitucionalidade das cotas raciais, cabendo aos reitores, em cada universidade, adotá-las e implementá-las.

Há aqui uma oportunidade para que os professores mais esclarecidos assumam a liderança e se esforcem para manter elevado o nível de suas universidades sem descuidar de tornar o acesso pelo mérito mais democrático, e sem a adoção de cotas raciais, como algumas universidades estaduais de São Paulo estão fazendo.

* A equipe do Jornal da Ciência esclarece que o conteúdo e opiniões expressas nos artigos assinados são de responsabilidade do autor e não refletem necessariamente a opinião do jornal.

Ellen Cantarow: “… bizarre weather that seemed to be sending a meteorological message” (Tom Dispatch)

Tomgram: Ellen Cantarow, The New Eco-Devastation in Rural America

Posted by Ellen Cantarow at 5:25pm, May 20, 2012.

When workers drilling tunnels at Gauley Bridge, West Virginia, began to die, Union Carbide had an answer.  It hadn’t been taking adequate precautions against the inhalation of silica dust, a known danger to workers since the days of ancient Greece.  Instead, in many cases, a company doctor would simply tell the families of the workers that they had died of “tunnelitis,” and a local undertaker would be paid $50 to dispose of each corpse.  A few years later, in 1935, a congressional subcommittee discovered that approximately 700 workers had perished while drilling through Hawk’s Nest Mountain, many of them buried in unmarked graves at the side of the road just outside the tunnel.  The subcommittee concluded that Union Carbide’s project had been accomplished through a “grave and inhuman disregard of all considerations for the health, lives and future of the employees.”

Despite the “Hawk’s Nest Incident” and thousands of Depression-era lawsuits against foundries, mines, and construction companies, silicosis never disappeared.  In the decades since, asTomDispatch authors David Rosner and Jerry Markowitz have repeatedly demonstrated, industry worked tirelessly to label silicosis a “disease of the past,” even while ensuring that it would continue to be a disease of the present.  By the late 1990s, the Columbia University researchers found that from New York to California, from Texas all the way back to West Virginia, millions of workers in foundries, shipyards, mines, and oil refineries, among other industries, were endangered by silica dust.

Today, there’s a new silicosis scare on the horizon and a new eco-nightmare brewing in the far corners of rural America.  Like the Hawk’s Nest disaster it has flown under the radar — until now.

Once upon a time, mining companies tore open hills or bored through or chopped off mountain tops to get at vital resources inside.  They were intent on creating quicker paths through nature’sobstacles, or (as at Gauley Bridge) diverting the flow of mighty rivers. Today, they’re doing it merely to find the raw materials — so-called frac sand — to use in an assault on land several states away.  Multinational corporations are razing ancient hills of sandstone in the Midwest and shipping that silica off to other pastoral settings around the United States.  There, America’s prehistoric patrimony is being used to devastating effect to fracture shale deposits deep within the earth — they call it “hydraulic fracturing” — and causing all manner of environmental havoc.  Not everyone, however, is keen on this “sand rush” and coalitions of small-town farmers, environmentalists, and public health advocates are now beginning to stand firm against the big energy corporations running sand-mining operations in their communities.

Ground zero in this frac-fight is the rural Wisconsin towns to which TomDispatch’s rovingenvironmental reporter Ellen Cantarow traveled this spring to get the biggest domestic environmental story that nobody knows about.  Walking the fields of family farms under siege and talking to the men and women resisting the corporations, Cantarow offers up a shocking report of vital interest.  There’s a battle raging for America’s geological past and ecological future — our fresh food and clean water supplies may hinge on who wins it. Nick Turse

How Rural America Got Fracked

The Environmental Nightmare You Know Nothing About

By Ellen Cantarow

If the world can be seen in a grain of sand, watch out.  As Wisconsinites are learning, there’s money (and misery) in sand — and if you’ve got the right kind, an oil company may soon be at your doorstep.

March in Wisconsin used to mean snow on the ground, temperatures so cold that farmers worried about their cows freezing to death. But as I traveled around rural townships and villages in early March to interview people about frac-sand mining, a little-known cousin of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” daytime temperatures soared to nearly 80 degrees — bizarre weather that seemed to be sending a meteorological message.

In this troubling spring, Wisconsin’s prairies and farmland fanned out to undulating hills that cradled the land and its people. Within their embrace, the rackety calls of geese echoed from ice-free ponds, bald eagles wheeled in the sky, and deer leaped in the brush. And for the first time in my life, I heard the thrilling warble of sandhill cranes.

Yet this peaceful rural landscape is swiftly becoming part of a vast assembly line in the corporate race for the last fossil fuels on the planet. The target: the sand in the land of the cranes.

Five hundred million years ago, an ocean surged here, shaping a unique wealth of hills and bluffs that, under mantles of greenery and trees, are sandstone. That sandstone contains a particularly pure form of crystalline silica.  Its grains, perfectly rounded, are strong enough to resist the extreme pressures of the technology called hydraulic fracturing, which pumps vast quantities of that sand, as well as water and chemicals, into ancient shale formations to force out methane and other forms of “natural gas.”

That sand, which props open fractures in the shale, has to come from somewhere.  Without it, the fracking industry would grind to a halt. So big multinational corporations are descending on this bucolic region to cart off its prehistoric sand, which will later be forcefully injected into the earth elsewhere across the country to produce more natural gas.  Geology that has taken millions of years to form is now being transformed into part of a system, a machine, helping to drive global climate change.

“The valleys will be filled… the mountains and hills made level”

Boom times for hydraulic fracturing began in 2008 when new horizontal-drilling methods transformed an industry formerly dependent on strictly vertical boring. Frac-sand mining took off in tandem with this development.

“It’s huge,” said a U.S. Geological Survey mineral commodity specialist in 2009. “I’ve never seen anything like it, the growth. It makes my head spin.” That year, from all U.S. sources, frac-sand producers used or sold over 6.5 million metric tons of sand — about what the Great Pyramid of Giza weighs.  Last month, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Senior Manager and Special Projects Coordinator Tom Woletz said corporations were hauling at least 15 million metric tons a year from the state’s hills.

By July 2011, between 22 and 36 frac-sand facilities in Wisconsin were either operating or approved. Seven months later, said Woletz, there were over 60 mines and 45 processing (refinement) plants in operation. “By the time your article appears, these figures will be obsolete,” claims Pat Popple, who in 2008 founded the first group to oppose frac-sand mining, Concerned Chippewa Citizens (now part of The Save the Hills Alliance).

Jerry Lausted, a retired teacher and also a farmer, showed me the tawny ridges of sand that delineated a strip mine near the town of Menomonie where he lives. “If we were looking from the air,” he added, “you’d see ponds in the bottom of the mine where they dump the industrial waste water. If you scan to the left, you’ll see the hills that are going to disappear.”

Those hills are gigantic sponges, absorbing water, filtering it, and providing the region’s aquifer with the purest water imaginable. According to Lausted, sand mining takes its toll on “air quality, water quality and quantity. Recreational aspects of the community are damaged. Property values [are lowered.] But the big thing is, you’re removing the hills that you can’t replace.  They’re a huge water manufacturing factory that Mother Nature gave us, and they’re gone.”

It’s impossible to grasp the scope of the devastation from the road, but aerialvideos and photographs reveal vast, bleak sandy wastelands punctuated with waste ponds and industrial installations where Wisconsin hills once stood.

When corporations apply to counties for mining permits, they must file “reclamation” plans. But Larry Schneider, a retired metallurgist and industrial consultant with a specialized knowledge of mining, calls the reclamation process “an absolute farce.”

Reclamation projects by mining corporations since the 1970s may have made mined areas “look a little less than an absolute wasteland,” he observes. “But did they reintroduce the biodiversity? Did they reintroduce the beauty and the ecology? No.”

Studies bear out his verdict. “Every year,” wrote Mrinal Ghose in the Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, “large areas are continually becoming unfertile in spite of efforts to grow vegetation on the degraded mined land.”

Awash in promises of corporate jobs and easy money, those who lease and sell their land just shrug. “The landscape is gonna change when it’s all said and done,” says dairy farmer Bobby Schindler, who in 2008 leased his land in Chippewa County to a frac-sand company called Canadian Sand and Proppant. (EOG, the former Enron, has since taken over the lease.) “Instead of being a hill it’s gonna be a valley, but all seeded down, and you’d never know there’s a mine there unless you were familiar with the area.”

Of the mining he adds, “It’s really put a boost to the area. It’s impressive the amount of money that’s exchanging hands.” Eighty-four-year-old Letha Webster, who sold her land 100 miles south of Schindler’s to another mining corporation, Unimin, says that leaving her home of 56 years is “just the price of progress.”

Jamie and Kevin Gregar — both 30-something native Wisconsinites and military veterans — lived in a trailer and saved their money so that they could settle down in a pastoral paradise once Kevin returned from Iraq. In January 2011, they found a dream home near tiny Tunnel City. (The village takes its name from a nearby rail tunnel). “It’s just gorgeous — the hills, the trees, the woodland, the animals,” says Jamie. “It’s perfect.”

Five months after they moved in, she learned that neighbors had leased their land to “a sand mine” company. “What’s a sand mine?” she asked.

Less than a year later, they know all too well.  The Gregars’ land is now surrounded on three sides by an unsightly panorama of mining preparations. Unimin is uprooting trees, gouging out topsoil, and tearing down the nearby hills. “It looks like a disaster zone, like a bomb went off,” Jamie tells me.

When I mention her service to her country, her voice breaks. “I am devastated. We’ve done everything right. We’ve done everything we were supposed to. We just wanted to raise our family in a good location and have good neighbors and to have it taken away from us for something we don’t support…” Her voice trails off in tears.

For Unimin, the village of Tunnel City in Greenfield township was a perfect target. Not only did the land contain the coveted crystalline silica; it was close to a rail spur. No need for the hundreds of diesel trucks that other corporations use to haul sand from mine sites to processing plants. No need, either, for transport from processing plants to rail junctions where hundreds of trains haul frac-sand by the millions of tons each year to fracture other once-rural landscapes. Here, instead, the entire assembly line operates in one industrial zone.

There was also no need for jumping the hurdles zoning laws sometimes erect. Like many Wisconsin towns where a culture of diehard individualism sees zoning as an assault on personal freedom, Greenfield and all its municipalities, including Tunnel City, are unzoned. This allowed the corporation to make deals with individual landowners. For the 8.5 acres where Letha Webster and her husband Gene lived for 56 years, assessed in 2010 at $147,500, Unimin paid $330,000. Overall, between late May and July 2011, it paid $5.3 million for 436 acres with a market value of about $1.1 million.

There was no time for public education about the potential negative possibilities of frac-sand mining: the destruction of the hills, the decline in property values, the danger of silicosis (once considered a strictly occupational lung disease) from blowing silica dust, contamination of ground water from the chemicals used in the processing plants, the blaze of lights all night long, noise from hundreds of train cars, houses shaken by blasting. Ron Koshoshek, a leading environmentalist who works with Wisconsin’s powerful Towns Association to educate townships about the industry, says that “frac-sand mining will virtually end all residential development in rural townships.” The result will be “a large-scale net loss of tax dollars to towns, increasing taxes for those who remain.”

Town-Busting Tactics

Frac-sand corporations count on a combination of naïveté, trust, and incomprehension in rural hamlets that previously dealt with companies no larger than Wisconsin’s local sand and gravel industries. Before 2008, town boards had never handled anything beyond road maintenance and other basic municipal issues.  Today, multinational corporations use their considerable resources to steamroll local councils and win sweetheart deals.  That’s how the residents of Tunnel City got taken to the cleaners.

On July 6, 2011, a Unimin representative ran the first public forum about frac-sand mining in the village.  Other heavily attended and often heated community meetings followed, but given the cascades of cash, the town board chairman’s failure to take a stand against the mining corporation, and Unimin’s aggressiveness, tiny Tunnel City was a David without a slingshot.

Local citizens did manage to get the corporation to agree to give the town $250,000 for the first two million tons mined annually, $50,000 more than its original offer. In exchange, the township agreed that any ordinance it might pass in the future to restrict mining wouldn’t apply to Unimin. Multiply the two million tons of frac-sand tonnage Unimin expects to mine annually starting in 2013 by the $300 a ton the industry makes and you’ll find that the township only gets .0004% of what the company will gross.

For the Gregars, it’s been a nightmare.  Unimin has refused five times to buy their land and no one else wants to live near a sand mine. What weighs most heavily on the couple is the possibility that their children will get silicosis from long-term exposure to dust from the mine sites. “We don’t want our kids to be lab rats for frac-sand mining companies,” says Jamie.

Drew Bradley, Unimin’s senior vice president of operations, waves such fears aside. “I think [citizens] are blowing it out of proportion,” he told a local publication. “There are plenty of silica mines sited close to communities. There have been no concerns exposed there.”

That’s cold comfort to the Gregars. Crystalline silica is a known carcinogen and the cause of silicosis, an irreversible, incurable disease. None of the very few rules applied to sand mining by the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) limit how much silica gets into the air outside of mines. That’s the main concern of those living near the facilities.

So in November 2011, Jamie Gregar and ten other citizens sent a 35-page petitionto the DNR. The petitioners asked the agency to declare respirable crystalline silica a hazardous substance and to monitor it, using a public health protection level set by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The petition relies on studies, including one by the DNR itself, which acknowledge the risk of airborne silica from frac-sand mines for those who live nearby.

The DNR denied the petition, claiming among other things that — contrary to its own study’s findings — current standards are adequate. One of the petition’s signatories, Ron Koshoshek, wasn’t surprised. For 16 years he was a member of, and for nine years chaired, Wisconsin’s Public Intervenor Citizens Advisory Committee.  Created in 1967, its role was to intercede on behalf of the environment, should tensions grow between the DNR’s two roles: environmental protector and corporate licensor. “The DNR,” he says, “is now a permitting agency for development and exploitation of resources.”

In 2010, Cathy Stepp, a confirmed anti-environmentalist who had previously railedagainst the DNR, belittling it as “anti-development, anti-transportation, and pro-garter snakes,” was appointed to head the agency by now-embattled Governor Scott Walker who explained: “I wanted someone with a chamber-of-commerce mentality.”

As for Jamie Gregar, her dreams have been dashed and she’s determined to leave her home. “At this point,” she says, “I don’t think there’s a price we wouldn’t accept.”

Frac-Sand vs. Food

Brian Norberg and his family in Prairie Farm, 137 miles northwest of Tunnel City, paid the ultimate price: he died while trying to mobilize the community against Procore, a subsidiary of the multinational oil and gas corporation Sanjel. The American flag that flies in front of the Norbergs’ house flanks a placard with a large, golden NORBERG, over which pheasants fly against a blue sky.  It’s meant to represent the 1,500 acres the family has farmed for a century.

“When you start talking about industrial mining, to us, you’re violating the land,” Brian’s widow, Lisa, told me one March afternoon over lunch.  She and other members of the family, as well as a friend, had gathered to describe Prairie Farm’s battle with the frac-sanders. “The family has had a really hard time accepting the fact that what we consider a beautiful way to live could be destroyed by big industry.”

Their fight against Procore started in April 2011: Sandy, a lifelong friend and neighbor, arrived with sand samples drillers had excavated from her land, and began enthusiastically describing the benefits of frac-sand mining. “Brian listened for a few minutes,” Lisa recalls. “Then he told her [that]… she and her sand vials could get the heck — that’s a much nicer word than what he used  — off the farm.  Sandy was hoping we would also be excited about jumping on the bandwagon. Brian informed her that our land would be used for the purpose God intended, farming.”

Brian quickly enlisted family and neighbors in an organizing effort against the company. In June 2011, Procore filed a reclamation plan — the first step in the permitting process — with the county’s land and water conservation department. Brian rushed to the county office to request a public hearing, but returned dejected and depressed. “He felt completely defeated that he could not protect the community from them moving in and destroying our lives,” recalls Lisa.

He died of a heart attack less than a day later at the age of 52. The family is convinced his death was a result of the stress caused by the conflict. That stress is certainly all too real.  The frac-sand companies, says family friend Donna Goodlaxson, echoing many others I interviewed for this story, “go from community to community. And one of the things they try to do is pit people in the community against each other.”

Instead of backing off, the Norbergs and other Prairie Farm residents continued Brian’s efforts. At an August 2011 public hearing, the town’s residents directly addressed Procore’s representatives. “What people had to say there was so powerful,” Goodlaxson remembers. “Those guys were blown out of their chairs. They weren’t prepared for us.”

“I think people insinuate that we’re little farmers in a little community and everyone’s an ignorant buffoon,” added Sue Glaser, domestic partner of Brian’s brother Wayne. “They found out in a real short time there was a lot of education behind this.”

“About 80% of the neighborhood was not happy about the potential change to our area,” Lisa adds. “But very few of us knew anything about this industry at [that] time.” To that end, Wisconsin’s Farmers’ Union and its Towns Association organized a day-long conference in December 2011 to help people “deal with this new industry.”

Meanwhile, other towns, alarmed by the explosion of frac-sand mining, were beginning to pass licensing ordinances to regulate the industry. In Wisconsin, counties can challenge zoning but not licensing ordinances, which fall under town police powers.  These, according to Wisconsin law, cannot be overruled by counties or the state. Becky Glass, a Prairie Farm resident and an organizer with Labor Network for Sustainability, calls Wisconsin’s town police powers “the strongest tools towns have to fight or regulate frac-sand mining.” Consider them so many slingshots employed against the corporate Goliaths.

In April 2012, Prairie Farm’s three-man board voted 2 to 1 to pass such an ordinance to regulate any future mining effort in the town. No, such moves won’t stop frac-sand mining in Wisconsin, but they may at least mitigate its harm. Procore finally pulled out because of the resistance, says Glass, adding that the company has since returned with different personnel to try opening a mine near where she lives.

“It takes 1.2 acres per person per year to feed every person in this country,” says Lisa Norberg. “And the little township that I live in, we have 9,000 acres that are for farm use. So if we just close our eyes and bend over and let the mining companies come in, we’ll have thousands of people we can’t feed.”

Food or frac-sand: it’s a decision of vital importance across the country, but one most Americans don’t even realize is being made — largely by multinational corporations and dwindling numbers of yeoman farmers in what some in this country would call “the real America.”  Most of us know nothing about these choices, but if the mining corporations have their way, we will soon enough — when we check out prices at the supermarket or grocery store. We’ll know it too, as global climate change continues to turn Wisconsin winters balmy and supercharge wild weather across the country.

While bucolic landscapes disappear, aquifers are fouled, and countless farms across rural Wisconsin morph into industrial wastelands, Lisa’s sons continue to work the Norberg’s land, just as their father once did. So does Brian’s nephew, 32-year-old Matthew, who took me on a jolting ride across his fields. The next time I’m in town, he assured me, we’ll visit places in the hills where water feeds into springs. Yes, you can drink the water there. It’s still the purest imaginable. Under the circumstances, though, no one knows for how long.

Ellen Cantarow’s work on Israel/Palestine has been widely published for over 30 years. Her long-time concern with climate change has led her to investigate the global depredations of oil and gas corporations atTomDispatch. Many thanks to Wisconsin filmmaker Jim Tittle, whosedocumentary, “The Price of Sand,” will appear in August 2012, and who shared both his interviewees and his time for this article.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook. 

Copyright 2012 Ellen Cantarow

Bill Maher: “… praying away hurricanes is (not) meteorology” (TheHuffington Post)

Bill Maher: Liberty University Is Not A Real School

By  Posted: 05/19/2012 11:10 pm Updated: 05/20/2012 11:18 am

Bill Maher Liberty University

At the end of “Real Time” Friday night, Bill Maher lambasted Liberty University, the Virginia religious university that has become a mandatory stop for Republican presidential candidates. (Watch above.)

“You can’t expect me to believe anything Mitt Romney said last week at Liberty University, because a) he’s a liar and b) Liberty University isn’t really a university,” Maher began. “It’s not like an actual statesman visited a real college. It’s more like the Tupac hologram visited Disneyland and said what he would do as president during the Main Street Electrical Parade.”

Romney delivered Liberty’s commencement speech on May 12.

Maher noted that Liberty teaches “creation science,” and the idea that earth was created 5,000 years ago. “This is a school you flunk out of when you get the answers right,” he joked.

Much as conservatives believe gay marriage cheapens their own vows, “I think a diploma from Liberty cheapens my diploma from a real school,” he continued. “I worked really hard for four years and sold a lot of drugs to get that thing.”

Liberty’s diploma may look real, Maher said, but “when you confuse a church with a school, Maher went on, “it mixes up the things you believe — religion — with the things we know — education. Then you start thinking that creationism is science, and gay aversion is psychology, and praying away hurricanes is meteorology.”

Soldiers Who Desecrate the Dead See Themselves as Hunters (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (May 20, 2012) — Modern day soldiers who mutilate enemy corpses or take body-parts as trophies are usually thought to be suffering from the extreme stresses of battle. But, research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) shows that this sort of misconduct has most often been carried out by fighters who viewed the enemy as racially different from themselves and used images of the hunt to describe their actions.

“The roots of this behaviour lie not in individual psychological disorders,” says Professor Simon Harrison who carried out the study, “but in a social history of racism and in military traditions that use hunting metaphors for war. Although this misconduct is very rare, it has persisted in predictable patterns since the European Enlightenment. This was the period when the first ideologies of race began to appear, classifying some human populations as closer to animals than others.”

European and North American soldiers who have mutilated enemy corpses appear to have drawn racial distinctions of this sort between close and distant enemies. They ‘fought’ their close enemies, and bodies remained untouched after death, but they ‘hunted’ their distant enemies and such bodies became the trophies that demonstrate masculine skill.

Almost always, only enemies viewed as belonging to other ‘races’ have been treated in this way. “This is a specifically racialised form of violence,” suggest Professor Harrison, “and could be considered a type of racially-motivated hate crime specific to military personnel in wartime.”

People tend to associate head-hunting and other trophy-taking with ‘primitive’ warfare. They consider wars fought by professional militaries as rational and humane. However, such contrasts are misleading. The study shows that the symbolic associations between hunting and war that can give rise to abnormal behaviour such as trophy-taking in modern military organisations are remarkably close to those in certain indigenous societies where practices such as head-hunting were a recognised part of the culture.

In both cases, mutilation of the enemy dead occurs when enemies are represented as animals or prey. Parts of the corpse are removed like trophies at ‘the kill’. Metaphors of ‘war-as-hunting’ that lie at the root of such behaviour are still strong in some armed forces in Europe and North America — not only in military training but in the media and in soldiers’ own self-perception.

Professor Harrison gives the example of the Second World War and shows that trophy-taking was rare on the European battlefields but was relatively common in the war in the Pacific, where some Allied soldiers kept skulls of Japanese combatants as mementos or made gifts of their remains to friends back home.

The study also gives a more recent comparison: there have been incidents in Afghanistan in which NATO personnel have desecrated the dead bodies of Taliban combatants but there is no evidence of such misconduct occurring in the conflicts of the former Yugoslavia where NATO forces were much less likely to have considered their opponents racially ‘distant’.

But, it would be wrong to suggest that such behaviour amounts to a tradition. These practices are usually not explicitly taught. Indeed, they seem to be quickly forgotten after the end of wars and veterans often remain unaware of the extent to which they occurred.

Furthermore, attitudes towards the trophies themselves change as the enemy ceases to be the enemy. The study shows how human remains kept by Allied soldiers after the Pacific War became unwanted memory objects over time, which ex-servicemen or their families often donated to museums. In some cases, veterans have made great efforts to seek out the families of Japanese soldiers in order to return their remains and to disconnect themselves from a disturbing past.

Professor Harrison concludes that human trophy-taking is evidence of the power of metaphor in structuring and motivating human behaviour. “It will probably occur, in some form or other, whenever war, hunting and masculinity are conceptually linked,” he says. “Prohibition is clearly not enough to prevent it. We need to recognise the dangers of portraying war in terms of hunting imagery.”

Heartland Institute’s digital billboards make bombastic comparisons (+video) (The Christian Science Monitor)

New billboards designed by the Heartland Institute compare climate scientists to the Unabomber, and other mass murderers. Climate scientists and other writers respond.

By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience / May 7, 2012

This billboard displayed in the Chicago area compared climate scientists to Ted Kaczynski, an anti-industrial mail bomber whose explosives murdered three and injured 23 more over two decades.

Image taken from heartland.org

Update, 5:23 p.m Eastern Time: In a statement by Heartland president Joseph Bast, the organization announced that it will be taking down the Unabomber billboard after only 24 hours. Bast wrote that the billboard was an “experiment” meant to “turn the tables” on climate-change advocates. 
“We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment,” Bast wrote. “We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”

The “experiment” resulted in “uncivil name-calling and disparagement” from climate-change scientists and activists, Bast complained. 

Billboards popping up in the Chicago area compare climate change scientists and advocates with Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, murderer Charles Manson and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

The billboards, paid for the Heartland Institute, are designed to promote the organization’s International Congress on Climate Change in Chicago later this month. The Heartland Institute describes itself as a nonprofit devoted to promoting free-market solutions for social and economic problems.

Climate scientists are already reacting to the actions, calling them “truly heinous” and the work of individuals who don’t get real global-warming science. In addition, they say the billboards will only bring global-warming skeptics and those who support global warming further apart.

The first billboard, which went up along the Eisenhower Expressway in Maywood, Ill., today (May 4), according to a Heartland spokesperson, features a mug shot of Kaczynski with the words “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” and a Web address for the Heartland Institute. In a press release, the organization justified this juxtaposition by calling the support for human-caused global warming “nutty.”

“The point is that believing in global warming is not ‘mainstream,’ smart, or sophisticated,” the organization wrote. “In fact, it is just the opposite of those things.” [The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted]

Climate scientists and mass murderers

Heartland further struck out at Peter Gleick, a prominent climate scientist who leaked internal Heartland documents online in February, revealing the Institute’s fundraising efforts and plans to spread doubt about climate change. Heartland claims that one of the documents was faked, referring to the occurrence as “fakegate” in their release.

Gleick says the documents were anonymously mailed to him and he sought the other documents to verify the information. The information in the disputed document is backed up in the other documents, the veracity of which Heartland has not disputed. Individuals named in these documents have confirmed that they were working with Heartland on the plans.

Nevertheless, Heartland has sought to portray itself as on the defensive. In its most recent statement, the organization writes that the leaked memo scandal “revealed that the leaders of the global warming movement are willing to break the law and the rules of ethics to shut down scientific debate and implement their left-wing agendas.”

“The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society,” the statement reads. “This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

The target of their new campaign, Heartland spokesperson Jim Lakely said, is “people who aren’t otherwise following the global-warming debate.”

“Heartland is not usually in the provocation business, which is a common tactic of the global-warming alarmists,” Lakely toldLiveScience. “The reaction to this billboard has been interesting.”

Scientists respond

Unsurprisingly, some of the scientists who research climate change took umbrage at this portrayal.

“This is only the latest in a long history of truly heinous actions by the Heartland Institute,” said Michael Mann, the Pennsylvania State University climate scientist who originally published the famous “hockey stick” graph showing a rise in average global temperatures after the industrial revolution.

“The only thing I can think of here is that they are acting out of true desperation,” Mann told LiveScience.

News of — and jokes about — the billboards quickly spread around the social-networking site Twitter.

“#Heartland Institute believes in gravity. SO DID HITLER,” wrote Kevin Borgia, the director of the Illinois Wind Energy Coalition.

“Ted Kaczynsk[i] believes the world is round, and the Heartland Institute tries to persuade people that the world is flat,” tweeted Ken Caldeira, an environmental scientist at the Carnegie Institution in StanfordCalif.

Jason Samenow, a meteorologist at Washington Post, gave his response in a blog post on the newspaper’s website.

“Their approach won’t help different perspectives find common ground and work towards the most appropriate path forward,” Samenow wrote. “But maybe that’s what Heartland, in reality, is fighting against …”

Editor’s Note: The article was updated at 2:11 p.m. to correct Jason Samenow’s professional affiliation.

*   *   *

From the Heartland Institute website:

May 03, 2012

May 3, 2012 – Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too.

Heartland’s first digital billboard – along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) in Maywood – is the latest effort by the free-market think tank to inform the public about what it views as the collapsing scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming. It is also reminding viewers of the questionable ethics of global warming’s most prominent proponents.

“The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists,” said Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast. “They areCharles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).

Bast added, “The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory.” For more about the billboards and why Heartland says people should not still believe in global warming, click here.

Background

The Heartland Institute is widely recognized as a leading source of science and economics questioning claims that man-made global warming is a crisis. It has published two extensive volumes citing thousands of peer-reviewed studies: Climate Change Reconsidered 2009 (880 pages) and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report (416 pages). Both reports are available online at www.nipccreport.org and www.globalwarmingheartland.org.

The Heartland Institute will host its Seventh International Conference on Climate Change from Monday, May 21 through Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at the Hilton Chicago Hotel, starting on the final day of the historic NATO Summit. The conference will feature more than 50 scientists and economists lecturing on their latest findings, as well as political leaders and dignitaries from around the world.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, will deliver the first dinner address on May 21. More information about the conference — including registration information for the public and the media – can be found atclimateconference.heartland.org. Videos from past conferences and describing the upcoming conference are also available on that site.

For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.


Do You Still Believe in Global Warming?

May 3, 2012 – Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too. The first digital billboard – along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) in Maywood – appeared today.

The Heartland Institute is widely recognized as a leading source of science and economics questioning claims that man-made global warming is a crisis. The rest of this page provides answers to some of the questions you might have about these billboards. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely atjlakely@heartland.org and 312/377-4000.

1. Who appears on the billboards?

The billboard series features Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber; Charles Manson, a mass murderer; and Fidel Castro, a tyrant. Other global warming alarmists who may appear on future billboards include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).

These rogues and villains were chosen because they made public statements about how man-made global warming is a crisis and how mankind must take immediate and drastic actions to stop it.

2. Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards?

Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming. They are so similar, in fact, that a Web site has a quiz that asks if you can tell the difference between what Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote in his “Manifesto” and what Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance.

The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated. In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming – after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory – is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.

Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants. But the Climategate scandal and the more recent Fakegate scandal revealed that the leaders of the global warming movement are willing to break the law and the rules of ethics to shut down scientific debate and implement their left-wing agendas.

Scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming is collapsing. Most scientists and 60 percent of the general public (in the U.S.) do not believe man-made global warming is a problem. (Keep reading for proof of these statements.) The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.

3. Why shouldn’t I still believe in global warming?

Because the best available science says about two-thirds of the warming in the 1990s was due to natural causes, not human activities; the warming trend of the second half of the twentieth century century already has stopped and forecasts of future warming are unreliable; and the benefits of a moderate warming are likely to outweigh the costs. Global warming, in other words, is not a crisis. For a plain English introductory essay with lots of links to research that proves these points, see “Global Warming: Not a Crisis.”

Most people who still believe in global warming do so because they trust the United Nations, the so-called mainstream media, and leading political figures to be telling them the truth about a complicated scientific issue. That trust has been betrayed.

The government agency created by the United Nations to find a link between human activities and global warming did exactly what it was created and paid to do! By ignoring natural causes of climate variation, it claims to have found evidence of a human impact and an urgent need for the UN to be given more money and more power to solve the problem. See Robert Carter’s book, Climate: The Counter Consensus, for an excellent recent commentary on just how unreliable the IPCC has become.

The mainstream media are “in the tank” with environmental activists and big-government advocates, to the point that they deliberately and expressly censor dissenting views on climate. Even distinguished scientists who dissent from the global warming dogma, such as MIT’s Richard Lindzen and the University of Virginia’s S. Fred Singer, are regularly savaged and defamed by reporters for some of the largest-circulation newspapers in the country. See the Media Research Center’s 2008 report, “Global Warming Censored,” for a good account of media bias on this topic.

And nobody should believe politicians who say they want to raise taxes, give subsidies to their buddies, or regulate growing industries in the name of “global warming.” Politicians aren’t scientists, and they aren’t motivated by the search for scientific truth. Mostly, they want to raise taxes, redistribute wealth, and regulate industry because doing so increases their power and chances for reelection. Two good recent books that make this point are Climate Coup by Patrick Michaels and Eco-Tyranny by Brian Sussman.

4. But isn’t it true that 98 percent of climate scientists believe in global warming?

No, this is just a myth that gets repeated over and over by global warming advocates. The alleged sources of this claim are two studies. One is a survey that didn’t ask if global warming is bad or even how much of past warming was man-made. That survey also excluded all but 79 (not a typo!) of the thousands of people who responded to it in order to arrive at the 98 percent figure.

The other study reported the number of times global warming alarmists and realists appeared in academic journals, and found that a small group of alarmists appeared hundreds of times. That doesn’t mean they are more likely to be right. In fact, there are many reasons why realists appear to be published less often than alarmists.

A detailed analysis of these two studies appears in this essay: “The Myth of the 98%.

More broadly, the claim that there is a “scientific consensus” that global warming is both man-made and a serious problem is untrue. Sources used to document this claim invariably fail to do so, while more reliable surveys and examinations of the literature reveal that most scientists do not believe in the key scientific claims upon which global warming alarmism rests. For example, most scientists do not believe computer models are sufficiently reliable to make long-term forecasts of climate temperatures.

That goes to the very heart of the alarmists’ predictions and worries. For a detailed analysis of the claim of a “scientific consensus” on global warming, see this essay: “You Call This Consensus?

5. Are you saying anyone who believes in global warming is a mass murderer, tyrant, or terrorist?

Of course not. But we are saying that the ethics of many advocates of global warming are very suspect. Consider two recent scandals that exposed the way they think:

Climategate was the leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England in 2010 and 2011. The emails revealed a conspiracy to suppress debate, rig the peer review process to keep out of the leading academic journals any scientists skeptical of catastrophic man-caused global warming, hiding data, fudging research findings, and dodging Freedom of Information Act requests.

Fakegate was the theft in early 2012 of confidential corporate documents from The Heartland Institute by Dr. Peter Gleick, a leading climate scientist and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California. Gleick admitted on February 20 to using a false identity to steal the documents and then disseminating them – along with a fake memo purporting to be Heartland’s “climate strategy” – to sympathetic bloggers and journalists.

Megan McArdle wrote this about Fakegate in The Atlantic: “Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?”

Robert Tracinski wrote this at Real Clear Politics: “The global warming alarmists are losing the argument, and the latest scandal–James Delingpole calls it Fakegate–shows just how desperate they have become.”

Poor judgement … believing the ends justify the means … desperation. Now do you see why we really shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, Ted Kaczynski, and other famous criminals believe in global warming?

6. Why should I believe The Heartland Institute?

We don’t think you should “believe” anyone. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions. But since you ask …

The Heartland Institute has been conducting research into the real science and economics of climate change for more than 15 years. We have assembled hundreds of scientists to share their knowledge, participate in debates, and conduct peer review of our publications. Importantly, nobody here is paid to believe in global warming.

Heartland is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. It is supported by approximately 1,800 individuals, foundations, and corporations. No corporation gives more than 5 percent of its annual budget.

Heartland has distributed millions of copies of books, booklets, videos, and reprints that examine the causes and consequences of climate change. It published two hefty volumes citing thousands of peer-reviewed studies: Climate Change Reconsidered 2009 (880 pages) and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report (416 pages). Both reports are available online at NIPCCreport.org and GlobalWarmingHeartland.org.

Heartland has hosted six International Conferences on Climate Change attracting nearly 3,000 people. Many of the world’s leading scientists, economists, and political leaders have spoken at these conferences. Video of the presentations made at those events can be found online.

So if you are looking for objective research on climate change, we are a good place to start.

7. Should I attend the ICCC-7?

The Heartland Institute will host its Seventh International Conference on Climate Change from Monday, May 21 through Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at the Hilton Chicago Hotel, starting on the final day of the historic NATO Summit. The conference will feature more than 50 scientists and economists lecturing on their latest findings, as well as political leaders and dignitaries from around the world.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, will deliver the first dinner address on Monday, May 21. More information about the conference – including registration information for the public and the media – can be found at climateconference.heartland.org. Videos from past conferences and describing the upcoming conference are also available on that site.

This year’s conference theme is “Real Science, Real Choices.” We will feature approximately 50 scientists and policy experts speaking at plenary sessions and on three tracks of concurrent panel sessions exploring what real climate science is telling us about the causes and consequences of climate change, and the real consequences of choices being made based on the current perceptions of the state of climate science.

Speakers for this year’s conference include:

  • Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI
  • Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 mission
  • Walter Cunningham, Apollo 7 mission
  • Harold Doiron, former NASA scientist
  • Thomas Wysmuller, former NASA scientist
  • Joe Bastardi, chief forecaster, WeatherBell
  • Roger Helmer, MP, Britain

Past conferences have taken place in New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Sydney, Australia and have attracted nearly 3,000 participants from 20 countries. The proceedings have been covered by ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Le Monde, and most other leading media outlets.

ICCC-7 is open to the public. Registration is required. More information is available at the conference home page. For media credentials, register here or contact Tammy Nash at tnash@heartland.org or 312-377-4000. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit our Web site or contact Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.

UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor [climate change](The Guardian)

Money from the Department for International Development has helped pay for a controversial programme that has led to miscarriages and even deaths after botched operations

Gethin Chamberlain
The Observer, Sunday 15 April 2012

Sterilisation remains the most common method of family planning in India’s bid to curb its burgeoning population of 1.2 billion. Photograph: Mustafa Quraishi/AP

Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, theObserver has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.

The UK agreed to give India £166m to fund the programme, despite allegations that the money would be used to sterilise the poor in an attempt to curb the country’s burgeoning population of 1.2 billion people.

Sterilisation has been mired in controversy for years. With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object. Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.

Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies.

Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control.

The latest allegations centre on the states of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, both targeted by the UK government for aid after a review of funding last year. In February, the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh had to publicly warn off his officials after widespread reports of forced sterilisation. A few days later, 35-year-old Rekha Wasnik bled to death in the state after doctors sterilised her. The wife of a poor labourer, she was pregnant with twins at the time. She began bleeding on the operating table and a postmortem cited the operation as the cause of death.

Earlier this month, India’s supreme court heard how a surgeon operating in a school building in the Araria district of Bihar in January carried out 53 operations in two hours, assisted by unqualified staff, with no access to running water or equipment to clean the operating equipment. A video shot by activists shows filthy conditions and women lying on the straw-covered ground.

Human rights campaigner Devika Biswas told the court that “inhuman sterilisations, particularly in rural areas, continue with reckless disregard for the lives of poor women”. Biswas said 53 poor and low-caste women were rounded up and sterilised in operations carried out by torchlight that left three bleeding profusely and led to one woman who was three months pregnant miscarrying. “After the surgeries, all 53 women were crying out in pain. Though they were in desperate need of medical care, no one came to assist them,” she said.

The court gave the national and state governments two months to respond to the allegations.

Activists say that it is India’s poor – and particularly tribal people – who are most frequently targeted and who are most vulnerable to pressure to be sterilised. They claim that people have been threatened with losing their ration cards if they do not undergo operations, or bribed with as little as 600 rupees (£7.34) and a sari. Some states run lotteries in which people can win cars and fridges if they agree to be sterilised.

Despite the controversy, an Indian government report shows that sterilisation remains the most common method of family planning used in its Reproductive and Child Health Programme Phase II, launched in 2005 with £166m of UK funding. According to the DfID, the UK is committed to the project until next year and has spent £34m in 2011-12. Most of the money – £162m – has been paid out, but no special conditions have been placed on the funding.

Funding varies from state to state, but in Bihar private clinics receive 1,500 rupees for every sterilisation, with a bonus of 500 rupees a patient if they carry out more than 30 operations on a particular day. NGO workers who convince people to have the operations receive 150 rupees a person, while doctors get 75 rupees for each patient.

A 2009 Indian government report said that nearly half a million sterilisations had been carried out the previous year but warned of problems with quality control and financial management.

In 2006, India’s ministry of health and family welfare published a report into sterilisation, which warned of growing concerns, and the following year an Indian government audit of the programme warned of continuing problems with sterilisation camps. “Quality of sterilisation services in the camps is a matter of concern,” it said. It also said the quality of services was affected because much of the work was crammed into the final part of the financial year.

When it announced changes to aid for India last year, the DfID promised to improve the lives of more than 10 million poor women and girls. It said: “We condemn forced sterilisation and have taken steps to ensure that not a penny of UK aid could support it. The UK does not fund sterilisation centres anywhere.

“The coalition government has completely changed the way that aid is spent in India to focus on three of the poorest states, and our support for this programme is about to end as part of that change. Giving women access to family planning, no matter where they live or how poor they are, is a fundamental tenet of the coalition’s international development policy.”

Guerra linguística na Espanha (2004)

Camps pide una entrevista urgente a Zapatero para exigir respeto al valenciano (Terra Notícias)

12/11/2004

Tras constatar que el Gobierno hacía explícita su cesión ante el ultimátum lanzado por ERC, Camps advirtió ayer de que la denominación del valenciano ‘es innegociable’ y que la Generalitat ‘no va a permitir que en ninguna instancia o ámbito’ desaparezca esta denominación para referirse a la lengua que se habla en la Autonomía que gobierna.

Camps recordó que la Constitución y el Estatuto de Autonomía reconocen el valenciano como una de las cuatro lenguas cooficiales del Estado, por cuanto ‘recurrirá cualquier documento, memorándum o ponencia’ que contravenga la ley ‘en menosprecio de unas señas de indentidad que no serán moneda de cambio de nadie’.

El aviso de Camps llegó después de un día entero a la espera de una aclaración oficial sobre el contenido de la reunión de urgencia celebrada el martes entre Zapatero, Carod-Rovira y Josep Bargalló, en la que, según los republicanos, el presidente del Gobierno dio marcha atrás en su decisión de reconocer el valenciano en la UE, pese a haber elevado ya un ejemplar de la Constitución Europea traducido a esa lengua.

La Generalitat valenciana dio su respuesta después de que el secretario de Estado de Asuntos Europeos, Alberto Navarro, confirmara que el Gobierno decidirá el próximo día 22 una ‘denominación única’ para referirse al valenciano y al catalán en el memorándum sobre diversidad lingüística que presentará a la UE.

Camps consideró que esa decisión es un golpe en la línea de flotación del modelo territorial vigente, ya que ‘pone en riesgo el modelo autonómico porque cuestiona la competencia de exclusividad que la Generalitat tiene sobre la lengua valenciana’. En esta línea, Camps señaló que la polémica ‘afecta muy mal’ al clima de entendimiento y cordialidad sobre el que ha de debatirse la reforma de los Estatutos y de la Constitución promovida por el Ejecutivo.

‘Zapatero ha vuelto a ceder ante los radicales, ya lo hizo con la derogación del trasvase del Ebro, y demuestra que está dispuesto a cometer una ilegalidad para lograr el respaldo de ERC a los Presupuestos’, proclamó Camps. Y por ello pidió ‘lealtad y apoyo’ del resto de Autonomías, y exigió una reunión urgente con el presidente del Gobierno.

Camps pide una entrevista urgente a Zapatero para exigir respeto al valenciano (ABC Madrid, 12/11/2004): link