martes, mayo 06, 2008

El PRD como comparsa
Guadalupe Acosta Naranjo

alvaro delgado

México, D.F., 5 de mayo (apro).- La derecha contempla, gozosa y aun extasiada, el vergonzoso espectáculo entre las facciones que se disputan los principales cargos burocráticos en el Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) que, este lunes, cumplió 19 años de haberse fundado bajo la tragedia de Sísifo, el rey griego condenado a empujar --al infinito-- una enorme roca hasta una cima, de la que cae reiteradamente.La derecha, por supuesto, ha hecho evidente su incondicional apoyo a Nueva Izquierda, la corriente que ha copado a lo largo de casi dos décadas la estructura burocrática del PRD y que, con base en ello, como ocurrió este domingo 4 en el Consejo Nacional --controlado por los Chuchos--, nombró presidente a Guadalupe Acosta Naranjo y secretaria general a Marta Delia Gastélum.En poco tiempo --horas, días, da lo mismo-- vendrá la respuesta: La Comisión Nacional de Garantías y Vigilancia --una especie de Poder Judicial partidario-- desconocerá a los representantes “chuchistas”, en razón de que los dos integrantes de esa instancia están identificados con la agrupación que apoya a Alejandro Encinas, al que ya había declarado virtual presidente del PRD con poco más de 80 por ciento de los votos computados.Se presentará después --como ya todo mundo sabe-- la impugnación a esa determinación de la Comisión Nacional de Garantías y que, al cabo de otras escaramuzas, el futuro de la elección perredista estará en manos de los nueves magistrados del Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación (TEPJF).Cualquiera que sea la determinación de éste órgano jurisdiccional --que quedó bajo sospecha a pesar de su nueva integración--, se impondrá a la voluntad que emitieron con su voto miles de militantes perredistas, la mayoría sin duda al margen de los cochupos de sus dirigentes, igual que ocurrió con la elección presidencial de 2006 y que impuso a Felipe Calderón.Pero la definición de qué corriente se impondrá en el PRD, al final, va mucho más allá de ese partido y a eso obedece el apoyo que la derecha que gravita en torno al PAN y al PRI ha dado a Nueva Izquierda, la corriente que liderean Jesús Ortega, Jesús Zambrano, Carlos Navarrete, René Arce, Guadalupe Acosta Naranjo y recientemente Ruth Zavaleta, elevada por la opinocracia a condición de ¡estadista!El ala moderada del PRD, como llaman a los “Chuchos” los jilgueros de la derecha, es en realidad eufemismo de ineptitud electoral, tal como lo acreditan los resultados que el PRD ha obtenido en los estados donde esos personajes han impuesto su voluntad, algo que dicen abominar de López Obrador.Aguascalientes, de donde es originario Ortega, el líder formal de Nueva Izquierda, es el caso cumbre: En los 19 años de vida del PRD no ha ganado nunca nada. Nada es nada, a pesar de que, en esos años, se ha renovado tres veces la gubernatura y ha habido seis elecciones trianuales de diputados locales y presidentes municipales. En las elecciones de 2004, el PRD se situó en el tercer lugar, con 22 mil 916 votos, mientras que el PAN ganó la gubernatura con 190 mil. Apenas el año pasado, en las elecciones locales más recientes, el partido que Ortega controla en el estado se fue al cuarto lugar, con 5 por ciento de los votos, y el quinto en posiciones obtenidas, desplazado por Convergencia y el Partido Verde. En las elecciones presidenciales de 2006, López Obrador les dio a los “Chuchos” lo que jamás habían soñado en Aguascalientes: La votación se elevó a 22 por ciento, muy superior al 7 por ciento que obtuvo Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas en el 2000.En lo que ha sido eficaz Jesús Ortega en Aguascalientes es en los negocios para su corriente: Actualmente el único diputado federal es Antonio Ortega, justamente su hermano, quien antes fue diputado local, igual que su esposa, Norma González, directivos también del PRD estatal. La esposa de Jesús Ortega, Angélica de la Peña, ha sido diputada federal dos veces, siempre por la vía de la representación proporcional, lo mismo que el único diputado local del PRD. No hay duda: Los gobiernos estatales, tanto del PRI como del PAN, son felices con el ala moderada perredista.Lo mismo ocurre en Guanajuato, de donde es originario Carlos Navarrete, coordinador de los senadores del PRD y quien ha desplazado, por su protagonismo, a Jesús Zambrano, el ideólogo del “chuchismo” y frustrado aspirante a la presidencia de su partido en la capital del país.Nueva Izquierda ha controlado el PRD de Guanajuato desde su fundación y Navarrete ha ocupado cargos relevantes como diputado federal en 1988, candidato a senador, diputado local y presidente estatal, lo que no se ha traducido en votos para el PRD, que ha sido una tercera fuerza sotanera.Eso sí, Miguel Alonso Raya, profesor allegado a Elba Esther Gordillo y candidato a senador en las elecciones de 2000, ofreció en su campaña por la presidencia estatal del PRD dialogar “hasta con El Yunque”, la organización de ultraderecha que controla al PAN, que ha impuesto su hegemonía en todo los ámbitos, incluidos los caducos órganos electorales.En la más reciente elección, en el 2006, concurrente con la federal, el PRD obtuvo más votos de los que se imaginó, a pesar del impresentable candidato que impuso Nueva Izquierda, Ricardo García Oceguera: Obtuvo sólo 10.82 por ciento. López Obrador, por su parte, logró 15.37 por ciento, casi diez puntos más que Cárdenas seis años atrás.En Nayarit, de donde es Acosta Naranjo --exsecretario general y presidente por decisión de la facción a la que pertenece--, las cosas no son tampoco halagüeñas para el PRD que controlan los “Chuchos”: Después de haber gobernado el estado en alianza con el PAN, el perredismo se fue a pique.En las más recientes elecciones, hace tres años, no sólo no ganó la gubernatura, sino que apenas conquistó una diputación de mayoría y una alcaldía. En los comicios del 6 de julio de este año no se prevén tampoco resultados mejores, pese a que reanudó la alianza de Acosta Naranjo con Antonio Chavarría, el empresario cocacolero que gobernó con arbitrariedad.Y en Sonora, de donde es Jesús Zambrano, tampoco se puede ufanar el PRD de tener gran fuerza electoral, a pesar de que él ya no controla ese partido. Lo mismo ocurre en Puebla, donde Nueva Izquierda cuenta con la simpatía de Mario Marín, y en Oaxaca, donde los “Chuchos” gozan de la amistad de Ulises Ruiz.Jesús Ortega criticó, en el festejo por el 19 aniversario del PRD, a la izquierda con vocación marginal y de oposición, condición que propuso cambiar por opción de gobierno. “La izquierda requiere no sólo de la fuerza para destruir el estatus quo, sino también la fuerza para construir el nuevo estado de cosas.”Añadió: “La izquierda crítica, propositiva, moderna, es la que necesitamos, que también sabe pelear, pero que sabe construir soluciones.” Uno esperaría que Nueva Izquierda, por lo menos donde Ortega y sus seguidores tienen presencia --como los estados descritos--, actúe con congruencia y predique con el ejemplo.
Pero francamente no se ve cómo los Chuchos puedan echar abajo la reforma privatizadora de Calderón con las 200 mil firmas que, anunció Ortega, buscarán juntas en los siguientes meses. Salvo que sea sólo parafernalia. Porque, en realidad, el modelo de los “Chuchos” no es el de la eficacia electoral que preocupe a sus adversarios de la derecha, cuyos permanentes vítores sólo confirman el aserto. La marginalidad, y la comparsa, es el auténtico negocio, como Aguascalientes...
Comentarios: delgado@proceso.com.mx
Definen FAP y AMLO agenda para el debate sobre la reforma energética
Andrés Manuel López Obrador y Carlos Navarrete

México, D.F., 5 de mayo (apro).- Legisladores del Frente Amplio Progresista (FAP) y el “gobierno legitimo” acordaron la agenda de la primera sesión del debate nacional en defensa del petróleo, en la que se prevé la participación de Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, el priista Manuel Bartlett, el escritor Arnaldo Córdova y el exprocurador Jorge Carpizo, además de Andrés Manuel López Obrador.Sin embargo, en la reunión de los lunes por la tarde entre el FAP y el “gobierno legitimo” López Obrador propuso que él no participara en las primeras sesiones, sino cuando termine su gira de dos meses por los estados de la República --comenzará a partir de este martes 6 de mayo--, en la que explicará a la población en qué consiste su movimiento en defensa del petróleo.Claudia Sheinbaum, coordinadora de las brigadas en defensa del petróleo, fue la encargada de pedirle a Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas que participara en la sesión del martes 13, día en que comenzará el debate nacional en el Congreso de la Unión.El FAP y el “gobierno legítimo” también definieron las estrategias de comunicación, además de la primera lista de la “ruta crítica” del mismo debate, es decir, quién participara primero, cuáles serán los temas que programarán, entre otros aspectos.Sehinbaum propuso preparar la comparecencia de la secretaria de Energía, Georgina Kessel, así como del director de Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), Jesús Reyes Heroles, para el jueves 15 de mayo ante comisiones del Senado.En las primeras dos sesiones podrían intervenir los presidentes del PRI, Beatriz Paredes, y del PAN, Germán Martínez. Se acordó que no asistiría ningún miembro del PRD debido a que aun persiste el conflicto de la elección interna.En la reunión se dijo que si bien persiste el rechazo a las iniciativas de Calderón, el debate debe de realizarse en torno a éstas, con el objetivo de que no se aprueben en el Congreso. La agenda se acordó en una comida que sostuvieron los coordinadores parlamentarios del PRI, PAN, PT, el coordinador del Frente Amplio Progresista, Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, los senadores Pablo Gómez, y Graco Ramírez, entre otros, junto con Claudia Sheinbaum. Este acuerdo fue presentado por la tarde a López Obrador.Al salir del encuentro el senador Carlos Navarrete comentó que parte del acuerdo es instalar dos pantallas gigantes en el Zócalo de la Ciudad de México para que la gente interesada en el tema del petróleo conozca cómo se esta realizando el debate nacional.Así mismo, el “gobierno legítimo” informó que a partir de mañana López Obrador realizará un recorrido de dos meses por la República Mexicana para sostener reuniones informativas con los comités estatales y municipales del movimiento nacional en defensa del petróleo.Explicará “las razones por las cuales la iniciativa de la reforma energética del gobierno espurio de Felipe Calderón pretende privatizar la industria petrolera con la clara intención de convertir al petróleo en un negocio privado”, señaló el “gobierno legítimo” por medio de un comunicado.López Obrador sostendrá esta semana 11 encuentros con brigadistas de Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Campeche Tabasco, Chiapas, Veracruz, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes y Guanajuato.

Claro!, a puro soborno y "negociaciones en lo oscurito"

STPS: Reforma laboral, después de la energética

* Afirma que el proyecto está listo y que éste responde a las necesidades competitividad y productividad de la economía

México, D.F., 5 de mayo (apro).- El secretario del Trabajo, Javier Lozano, anticipó hoy que una vez que se agoten los tiempos de la discusión y aprobación de la reforma energética, turnará al Congreso de la Unión una iniciativa de reforma laboral que esté acorde, dijo, a las necesidades de la competitividad y productividad de la economía.En entrevista, el funcionario no quiso adelantar más detalles de dicha reforma para no generar ruido innecesario a los debates sobre la reforma petrolera y "para que no lo empiecen a bombardear antes de que se pueda formalizar una discusión razonable y madura".Comentó que la pauta de la discusión la va a llevar el Congreso de la Unión en su momento. "No vamos a imponer al Poder Legislativo los tiempos ni la agenda y mucho menos a generar una presión adicional a la que ya tienen los señores legisladores".Lozano Alarcón tampoco quiso acreditarse la paternidad de dicha iniciativa. Explicó que después del análisis objetivo de más de 220 iniciativas "no importa que ese proyecto venga del PAN, del PRI, del PVEM, Convergencia o del PT, ya que lo importante es la modernización de ese marco legal sin tocar el Artículo 123 constitucional".Lo que se pretende es, dijo, "tener la mejor reforma posible y no la reforma perfecta y eso es a lo que le apuesto, a un proyecto que sea posible y que permita avanzar en el sentido correcto de la competitividad de la economía, de las propias relaciones laborales y la previsión social."Estoy convencido que cuando conozcan el documento que se ha preparado, por más críticas que pueda recibir por quienes lo critican antes de conocerlo, van a observar que muchos de los temas que ellos mismos presentaron están incorporados".Lo más que dijo el titular de la STPS es que el documento proyecta introducir nuevas formas de contratación individual, que faciliten el acceso al mercado laboral, concretamente el contrato a prueba o con capacitación previa.Sostuvo que también se busca regular la figura del outsourcing de una manera mucho más adecuada y certera, sin desaparecer empresas de ese tipo.Lo que se prevé, reiteró, es darle una absoluta claridad de cuál es el alcance que deben tener en la prestación de servicios a terceras personas, pero sobre todo en cuanto a las condiciones generales de trabajo, capacitación, seguridad e higiene que deben prevalecer en esas empresas de tercerización.La propuesta incluye, además, la promoción de mecanismos para que la procuración e impartición de justicia laboral sea más pronta, expedita, transparente y no se preste a simulaciones.La reforma laboral propondrá, así mismo, eliminar la cláusula de exclusión por separación, al considerar que es anticonstitucional, porque va contra el derecho al trabajo, al de asociación y a los derechos fundamentales de libertad sindical.Además se propone darle más facultades a la inspección federal del trabajo para poder clausurar centros donde hay un riesgo inminente.Por otra parte, el titular de la STPS consideró que el mejor antídoto para que no existan contratos de protección es la transparencia y la información.
Subrayó: "Todos los trabajadores deben saber qué contiene su Contrato Colectivo de Trabajo y qué dice el del vecino, para que eso sea un punto de referencia, un punto de partida y un punto de comparación que les permita ser más exigentes con sus propios líderes".

Invitación

Me acaba de llegar esta información, las conferencias ya empezaron pero siguen hasta el viernes, ojalá puedan asistir:


MITOS Y LEYENDAS DE LA POLÍTICA MEXICANA

FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS POLÍTICAS Y SOCIALES-UNAM

Martes 6 de mayo

Sala Lucio Mendieta

9:00-10:50

Mesa redonda inaugural:

Las falsas expectativas de la democracia

Benjamín Arditi (UNAM)

Joel Flores Rentería (UAM X)

Alvar Sosa Mansur (UNAM)
Moderador: Francisco Reveles (UNAM)

11:00-11:50
El poder del "innombrable": Salinas de Gortari

Ponente: Luis Javier Garrido (IIS-UNAM)
Comentarista: Guillermina Baena (UNAM)
12:00-12:50
Las "bondades" del cardenismo: paternalismo y corporativismo

Ponente: Rafael de la Garza (COLVER)
Comentarista: Mario Trujillo (CIESAS)
13:00-13:50
¡Peligro,! ¡Peligro!: ¿AMLO, el "populista"?

Ponente: Steven Johansson (UNAM)
Comentarista: Karla Valverde Viesca (UNAM)

Moderadora: Diana Guzmán (UNAM)


17:00-17:50
La derecha "oscura y tenebrosa:" el Yunque
Ponente: Francisco Reveles Vázquez (UNAM)
Comentarista: Miguel Angel Ramírez (UNAM)

18:00-18:50
Muerte y resurrección del PRI: ¿ahora sí?
Ponente: Rosa María Mirón Lince (UNAM)
Comentarista: Luis Reyes García (UAM)

19:00-19:50

El virtuoso-defectuoso divisionismo del PRD

Ponente: Rosendo Bolívar Meza (IPN)
Comentarista: Rodian Rangel (UNAM)

Moderador: Gustavo Martínez (FLACSO)

JUEVES 8 DE MAYO

SALA FERNANDO BENÍTEZ

9:00-9:50
El Poder Ejecutivo ¿fuerte?
Ponente: Francisco González Ayerdi (UNAM)
Comentarista: Gabriel Corona Armenta (IEEM)

10-00-10:50

El Poder Legislativo ¿débil?

Ponente: Luisa Béjar (UNAM)

Comentarista: Andrés Elizalde (UNAM)

Moderador: Josafat Cortéz (UNAM)

11:00-11:50

El "respeto" al estado de derecho
Ponente: Germán Pérez Fernández del Castillo (UNAM)
Comentarista: Héctor Zamitiz Gamboa (UNAM)
12:00-12:50
¿"Las leyes no se cumplen"?
Ponente: Carmen Solórzano Marcial (UNAM)
Comentarista: Víctor Manuel Muñoz Patraca (UNAM)
13:00-13:50
La extensa mitología electoral
Ponente: Marcela Bravo Ahuja (UNAM)
Comentarista: Irma Méndez de Hoyos (FLACSO)

Moderador: Miguel Angel Rojas (UNAM)

17:00-17:50

Las creencias de la derecha "moderna" de Felipe Calderón

Ponente: Francisco Reveles (UNAM)

Comentarista: Matilde Yáñez (UNAM)

18:00-18:50
La influencia del extranjero en educación: FMI, BM, OCDE (y todos los demás)
Ponente: Claudia Alaníz Hernández (UPN)
Comentarista: Carmen Roqueñí (UNAM)
19:00-19:50
La leyenda de Elba Esther Gordillo
Ponente: Aldo Muñoz (UIA)
Comentarista: Lorenzo Arrieta (UNAM)

Moderadora: Margarita Flores Santiago (UNAM)

VIERNES 9 DE MAYO

SALA LUCIO MENDIETA

9:00-9:50
La pereza ciudadana: realidad o fantasía
Ponente: Martha Singer (UNAM)
Comentarista: Alfonso Jiménez de Sandi (UNAM)
10:00-10:50
¿Ciudadanos impolutos versus políticos corruptos?
Ponente: Francisco Vite Bernal
Comentarista:Víctor Alarcón Olguín (UAM)

11:00-11:50
El prolongado liderazgo del Subcomandante Marcos
Ponente: Octavio Rodríguez Araujo (UNAM)
Comentarista: Valeriano Ramírez (UNAM)

Moderadora: Tatiana Pérez (UNAM)

12:00-14:00

Mesa redonda de clausura:
La crisis de la política . . . de los políticos, de los partidos, de los ciudadanos, etc.
Ricardo Espinoza Toledo (UAM I)
Víctor Hugo Martínez González (UNAM)

Jorge Márquez Muñoz(UNAM)

Moderador: Ruslan Posadas (UNAM)

F A C U L T A D D E C I E N C I A S P O L Í T I C A S Y S O C I A L E S – U N A M

Aumento de emergencia…

Por: Ing. Leopoldo Peña del Bosque, ME
Mucha desconfianza esta generando entre los mexicanos y en especial en sus Organizaciones Sindicales, las cifras que sobre inflación sigue reportando el Banco de México y la SHCP que siguen empeñados en engañarnos.
Resulta tan chocarrero como inhumano que dichas fuentes insistan en afirmar que la inflación anual sobre la canasta básica no rebasará el 5 %
Con el aluvión de incrementos en alimentos y alzas en las tarifas de luz, agua, gas y transporte lo mismo que el incremento en la gasolina, las "metas" de inflación y crecimiento tanto del Banco de México como de la propia Secretaría de Hacienda lucen risibles por lo increíbles, y obedece el engaño sin lugar a dudas a que sirven de comparsa a la Secretaría del Trabajo para que esta no se vea presionada a decretar un incremento de emergencia.
La seguidilla de incrementos en los bienes que conforman la canasta básica de los mexicanos es imposible que arroje una inflación anualizada del 5 % si se considera que el precio del huevo ha subido un 34%, el pan blanco y de caja más de un 39 %, el aceite comestible 70%, el frijol 28 %, los refrescos 22 % ; no se diga el arroz, el tomate, el plátano y la generalidad de verduras y frutas, lo mismo que los encarecidos cárnicos; que decir de las rentas de casas habitación, encarecidas por los terribles efectos del IETU en los arrendadores.
Ante la magnitud del problema inflacionario que sufrimos resignados todos los mexicanos, resulta obvio que el lastimoso plan anunciado por el Gobierno para combatir la pobreza repartiendo dinero vía SEDESOL a los indígenas, es una aspirina para enderezar el muerto que se cargan; porque si se mide con la misma vara que anteriores esfuerzos, arrojará resultados muy escasos ante la dimensión de afectaciones tan generalizadas al total de la población.
Es por ello que salta a la vista que se requiere más que una miserable limosna a los indígenas marginados, para restituir el nivel de ingreso real de las familias mexicanas de bajos y medios recursos, y eso solo se logra con incrementos salariales de emergencia, o en contrario echar para atrás los incrementos en los precios de los servicios que suministra el gobierno, por ejemplo el de la luz, el agua, el gas, el predial, el de la gasolina, el del transporte, además de abolir la aplicación del IETU que tanta inflación esta generando en rentas y en el nivel general de los precios.

Boletín Informativo ISA núm 413

http://serviciodenoticiasisa.blogspot.com

Sumario:

I. Que el pueblo decida mediante una consulta popular sobre la privatización del petróleo, propone López Obrador

II. Petróleo: futuro comprometido, por Alejandro Encinas

-----------------------------

QUE EL PUEBLO DECIDA MEDIANTE UNA CONSULTA POPULAR SOBRE LA PRIVATIZACIÓN DEL PETRÓLEO, PROPONE LÓPEZ OBRADOR

Al iniciar en Cancún, Quintana Roo, un recorrido que lo llevará a estar presente en las 32 entidades del país durante los próximos dos meses, Andrés Manuel López Obrador declaró hoy que “es indispensable que se realice una consulta al pueblo de México, para saber si está de acuerdo o rechaza la pretensión del gobierno espurio de privatizar el petróleo, que es patrimonio de la Nación”.

El presidente legítimo de México dio comienzo así a una serie de reuniones informativas con integrantes de comités estatales y municipales del Movimiento Nacional en Defensa del Petróleo, y destacó que ninguna decisión de los que mal gobiernan debe estar por encima de los intereses de la Nación.

“Que no se imponga nada, que sea el pueblo el que decida, porque en la democracia es el pueblo el que manda”, puntualizó, al manifestar que los legisladores podrán tener la última palabra, pero “la primera palabra siempre la va a tener el pueblo de México y eso es lo que vamos a defender”.

Ante casi mil brigadistas, López Obrador reiteró que la denominada reforma energética del gobierno calderonista tiene la intención de violar el artículo 27 constitucional, cuya letra precisa que corresponde sólo a la Nación las tareas de exploración y explotación del petróleo.

Asimismo, mencionó que el gobierno usurpador quiere entregar el proceso de refinación del citado energético a empresas extranjeras, así como las áreas de transporte y petroquímica y el manejo de los ductos.

Invitó a los miembros de los comités estatal y municipales en Defensa del Petróleo a informar casa por casa sobre la intención de Calderón de convertir al petróleo en un negocio privado. Explicó que su visita al sureste del país tiene el propósito de organizar a la gente como brigadistas en defensa del petróleo y señaló que hacia finales de junio se busca tener organizados a 200 mil brigadistas, que serán responsables de concientizar a los ciudadanos sobre las consecuencias que tendría una eventual privatización de la industria petrolera.

El dirigente de la izquierda mexicana detalló que de manera semanal o quincenal, los brigadistas informarán a los ciudadanos sobre cómo el gobierno espurio pretende engañar al pueblo de México con una serie de spots en donde se menciona que la reforma fortalecerá a Pemex. “No vamos a permitir que se privatice la industria petrolera, porque el petróleo ya tiene dueño y es el pueblo de México”, afirmó.

Acompañado por dirigentes estatales y municipales del Frente Amplio Progresista (PRD, PT y Convergencia), así como de organizaciones sociales y civiles, enfatizó que los mexicanos no dejaremos de ser país para convertirnos en una colonia, como pretende hacerlo Calderón y socios. “No seríamos una nación soberana, nos manejarían ya por entero, desde el extranjero. Ya no haría falta tener un presidente de la República, con un gerente de las grandes compañías extranjeras petroleras sería suficiente”, alertó.

Finalmente, manifestó que quienes participan en la defensa del petróleo son mexicanos decididos y “por esa razón tenemos que organizarnos mejor, para impedir un nuevo atraco a la Nación”.

Previamente, López Obrador concedió una entrevista radiofónica al programa “Desde el Café”, que se transmite por la frecuencia 106.7 FM, de este puerto turístico. Ante los micrófonos de la estación Caribe y bajo la conducción de Jorge González, informó que a partir de este día inicia reuniones informativas con los integrantes de los comités en Defensa del Petróleo.

---------------------------

PETRÓLEO: FUTURO COMPROMETIDO
por Alejandro Encinas

(publicado en El Universal el 6 de mayo de 2008)

¿Cuál es el origen de las diversas iniciativas en materia energética que hoy se debaten en el país? ¿Son estas de suyo iniciativas que obedezcan al interés nacional, o más bien el resultado de un súbito proceso de acuerdos y negociaciones, que atienden el “interés imperativo” en la estrategia energética de Estados Unidos?

La respuesta a estas preguntas se puede encontrar en distintos documentos del gobierno mexicano y sus contrapartes de Canadá y Estados Unidos en la Alianza para la Seguridad y la Prosperidad de América del Norte, creada por los presidentes de los tres países en 2005 y que en su agenda incorporó como prioritario el asunto energético, donde se convino crear mecanismos de cooperación en investigación y desarrollo, para determinar si existían posibilidades de alianzas público-privadas e incrementar la cooperación en materia de regulación sobre temas energéticos.

Para ello se creo una comisión trilateral con las dependencias encargadas de este tema de cada uno de los gobiernos y en 2006, durante la reunión de Cancún, se creó el Consejo de Competitividad de América del Norte, órgano consultivo “para mejorar la competitividad de la región”. A este consejo trilateral —en el que participan el Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, el Consejo Mexicano de Hombres de Negocios y otros organismos empresariales— se encomendó recomendar sobre cuestiones de importancia inmediata y estratégicas de mediano y largo plazo.

El Consejo determinó tres ejes: facilitación de cruces fronterizos (mercancías y personas), cooperación regulatoria e integración energética.

El documento Integración energética no tiene desperdicio. En éste se establece con toda claridad que “el acceso a recursos energéticos globales en los términos del mercado es un imperativo estratégico para los Estados Unidos”. Más adelante señala: “Pocos temas tienen un componente nacional estratégico tan significativo... Canadá y México han sido bendecidos (sic) con recursos abundantes, los cuales, si se desarrollan de manera eficiente y eficaz, pueden llegar a ser un importante motor para el desarrollo regional”.

“Si México fuera a liberalizar de manera cabal su sector energético, las reservas relativamente abundantes de petróleo y gas de ese país atraerían inversión y tecnología significativas. Sin embargo, el hecho de que no se haya liberalizado el sector energético de México ha frenado el proceso de inversión, y se percibe que un cambio constitucional sería poco probable en el corto plazo.” “Aunque la reforma del sector energético de México es un tema doméstico... el beneficio económico considerable que se podría obtener por iniciativas intermedias justifica traer el tema a la mesa de discusión. Al hacerlo, confiamos en que conforme se realicen las ganancias por iniciativas intermedias, la lógica de un mercado integrado determinará el ritmo para una reforma fundamental, en lugar de seguir esperando a que suceda lo contrario.”

Suscriben el documento —entre otros— José Luis Barraza, Gastón Azcárraga, León Halkin, Valentí Diez, Jaime Yesaki. Claudio X. González y Tomás González Sada.

Por si quedara alguna duda sobre esta estrategia de privatización cabe señalar que en febrero de 2007 este mismo consejo recomendó, que una vez asegurado el abasto de petróleo a la economía de Estados Unidos era necesario: “Liberalizar el comercio, almacenaje y distribución de productos refinados (lo que) incluiría la construcción, posesión y operación de oleoductos... (y) separar las actividades de gas no asociado de Pemex para construir una entidad estatal por separado, llamada ‘Gasmex’. Esta iniciativa intermedia es consistente con el objetivo a más largo plazo de liberalizar el sector mexicano de hidrocarburos.”

Podrán promoverse onerosas campañas mediáticas; negar hasta el cansancio la intención privatizadora; insistir que no se reformará la constitución; acusar a la oposición de ver fantasmas, de buscar notoriedad política. Mas el hecho claro y contundente es una estrategia privatizadora del petróleo que compromete el futuro del país, acorde con los intereses estratégicos de Estados Unidos, de su seguridad energética y nacional.

La conspiración para dividir Bolivia debe ser denunciada

El proceso de cambios a favor de las mayorías en Bolivia, corre el riesgo de ser brutalmente coartado. El ascenso al poder de un presidente indígena, electo con un respaldo sin precedentes en ese país, y sus programas de beneficio popular y de recuperación de los recursos naturales, han tenido que enfrentar desde los primeros momentos las conspiraciones oligárquicas y la injerencia imperial. En los días más recientes, la escalada conspirativa ha alcanzado sus cotas máximas. Las acciones subversivas y anticonstitucionales con que los grupos oligárquicos pretenden dividir la nación boliviana, reflejan la mentalidad racista y elitista de estos sectores y constituyen un peligrosísimo precedente, no sólo para la integridad de ese país, sino también para la de otros países de nuestra región. La historia muestra con sobrada elocuencia las terribles consecuencias que en todos los terrenos han tenido para la humanidad los procesos divisionistas y separatistas inducidos y respaldados por poderosos intereses foráneos. Ante esta situación, los abajo firmantes queremos expresar nuestro respaldo al gobierno del Presidente Evo Morales Ayma, a sus políticas de cambio y al proceso constituyente soberano del pueblo boliviano. Al propio tiempo, rechazamos el llamado Estatuto autonómico de Santa Cruz por su carácter inconstitucional y por atentar contra la unidad de una nación de nuestra América. Llamamos a todas las personas de buena voluntad a que unan sus voces para denunciar por todas las vías posibles esta maniobra divisionista y desestabilizadora en una hora histórica para la América Latina. Para firmas de adhesión al manifiesto de apoyo a la integridad territorial de Bolivia: http://www.todosconbolivia.org

Simposio Petróleo y Seguridad Energética

Les invitamos a que sigan la transmisión En vivo del Simposio Petróleo y Seguridad Energética Organizado por el FAP en la antigua escuela de medicina de la UNAM.

Les dejamos el video de una parte del mismo para que se animen a verlo y a difundirlo.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/396509


Video En VIVO


http://www.ustream.tv/radioamlo

Audio por Radio

http://radioamlo.blogspot.com

Canal de Chat y Radio

http://www.radioamlo.org
y en los blogs en resistencia

Mas adelante subiremos el material a radio AMLO.
--
Las tareas del Gobierno Legítimo de México se financian con donativos de los ciudadanos.Puedes depositar tus contribuciones en la cuenta número 0544555080 de Banorte, a nombre de Honestidad Valiente A.C., desde $30.00 hasta $30,000.00

La Narrativa del Conocimiento núm 110

How Europe Avoided Our Mess

The credit crisis, which is sapping America's economic strength, was the result of an almost religious belief in deregulation. It is instructive to consider the economic situation in nations that resisted deregulation.
Last week's Federal Reserve's rate cut of a quarter point is said to be the last one for a while. The Fed is about out of tricks.
Though our central bankers have now cut short term rates from 5.25 last September to the current 2.0 percent, credit costs to long-term borrowers are higher than they were a year ago -- because lenders fear increased inflation.
Some of this is the Fed's own doing. Its cheap-money policy, necessitated by the Fed's own failure to police harmful speculative practices, has further weakened the dollar, raising prices of imported commodities.
Many credit markets are still frozen for lack of investor confidence -- something that low interest rates cannot bring back. Losses continue to mount on the balance sheets of banks that made foolish speculative investments, causing credit to contract further.
None of this had to happen. The credit crisis, which is sapping America's economic strength, was the result of an almost religious belief in deregulation whose excesses are now coming home to roost.
It is instructive to compare the American financial mess with the economic situation in nations that resisted deregulation. Old Europe tends to get a scornful press in the U.S. But Europe is not suffering a financial meltdown today -- mainly because Europeans (with the exception of Britain and Switzerland) took only a few sips of the financial Kool-Aid so heavily promoted by U.S. banks.
A few European banks did get into trouble last summer, because they had been persuaded to buy toxic sub-prime securities made in America. Germany's powerhouse Deutsche Bank continues to suffer some big losses. But the European Central Bank, in its first real test since the Euro made its public debut in 2002, has performed well and the crisis has largely passed. On our side of the ocean, the Fed keeps lurching from bailout to bailout.
France had one bank fraud caused by a rogue trader, but no general credit crisis -- because French banks and their supervisors discourage speculative mortgage lending. Hence: no subprime mess. The French even have a banking requirement called obligation de conseil -- the banker's duty to counsel a borrower on the true costs and risks of credit. A senior French banking official told me, "If a banker promoted these sub-prime mortgages here, he would go to jail."
Spain, like the U.S., currently has an overhang of too much real estate development and falling housing prices. But unlike in the U.S., Spain's banks did not engage in subprime lending or create exotic mortgage-backed bonds. So Spain's housing problems did not spill over into a general credit crisis. And since Spain's government—led incidentally by fiscally prudent social-democrats—has a nice budget surplus, Spain has the money to stimulate its economy with public investments.
Europe also has high domestic savings rates and balanced trade accounts with the rest of the world. Europe, unlike the U.S., is not increasingly in hock to China. The high Euro, the flipside of the cheap dollar, protects the European economy from inflation. And despite using an expensive Euro that has appreciated 60 percent against the dollar in six years, Germany is running record trade surpluses.
How can that be? As German Chancellor Angela Merkel once twitted Britain's then Prime Minister Tony Blair, "Mr. Blair, we still make things." By contrast, the Brits and their American cousins think financial engineering is economic salvation. They don't seem to mind that if manufacturing keeps moving offshore, which is devastating for the trade balance.
In a recent interview, Germany's Gunter Verheugen, the vice-president of the EU, told me, "We need a strong and competitive industrial base in order to have a strong service economy. Don't try to be cheaper. Try to be better. Don't try to compete on low social standards."
So as the U.S keeps trying to contain a needless crisis caused by an extreme faith in financial engineering, the Europeans have kept their heads and a more balanced form of capitalism. While Europe has its own debate about the right balance between market innovations and social protections, there is little enthusiasm for taking more lessons from market-besotted Americans who have managed to sink what was once the world's strongest economy. The main worry is how much contagion from America will spill over onto Europe.
This column originally appeared in The Boston Globe.

VIOLENCIA, caracteristica de los neoliberales

The Violent Language of Right-Wing Pundits Poisons Our Democracy

On TV and the radio, conservative pundits infuse violence into their arguments, destroying our precious culture of civil debate.
The following is an excerpt from Jeffrey Feldmann's new book Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy (Ig Publishing, 2008).

The emergence of a cohort of right-wing pundits who use violent logic, language and arguments in national political debate did not gradually take shape over a long stretch of time, but rose up at a starling speed in the lead-up to the national elections of 2004 and 2006. As the horrific extent of the Iraqi military occupation waxed and George W. Bush's popularity waned, a hitherto sarcastic right-wing punditry seemed all at once to step into a new rhetorical frame. Suddenly, with Bush's re-election in doubt, casualties spiraling out of control, and revelations of U.S. military human rights abuses popping up all over, right-wing pundits shifted their tone from critique to conspiracy. The shift is summed up best by the opening line in Dinesh D'Souza's book The Enemy at Home: "The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11."
As if that is not enough, D'Souza's book also accuses liberals of engaging in civil war with the rest of America and of harboring a violent dream that complements the terrorist goals of Osama Bin Laden, yearns for the destruction of U.S. military forces in Iraq and seeks the downfall of the United States. D'Souza's book filled mainstream bookstores, giving scholarly legitimacy to violent accusations of high treason against vast segments of the American population.
Violent language as a manner of speech amongst right-wing pundits reached a crescendo in the days leading up to the 2006 midterm elections. I remember flipping through TV channels one day, attempting to avoid pundits' violent rhetoric. But such language was everywhere. Anne Coulter joked about "nuking" Iran, Bill O'Reilly talked about the "war on Christmas," Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs spoke of the "invasion" and "conquest" of America by immigrants. I even came across a discussion of the "war against the war," in which an anti-war protest was discussed as if it was a war. Every political topic seemed clouded over by a right-wing pundit using violence language.
In the first few months after the 2006 mid-term elections, I penned several blog posts questioning whether the rise of violent rhetoric on the right might be a dangerous development that could possibly transform, through a sudden incident, into actual physical violence. Turning to the work of Hannah Arendt, in particular her masterful study of politics and violence, On Violence, I began to realize that the last significant violent turn in American political ideology and practice involved both the political right and the left. The late 1960s was a time, Arendt explained, where people increasingly believed that violence could actually produce controlled political outcomes. The result was an era in U.S. politics where a broad range of different political organizations and movements each took up violence, a product of the widespread acceptance of Mao Tse-tung's aphorism "Political power grows at the barrel of a gun." Arendt watched this moment lead to assassinations and mass chaos in urban centers, and thus argued that violence was problematic because it led to outcomes in politics that could not be controlled. Violence, she explained, drawing on a famous quote from Karl Marx, may be the birth pang of a new political body, but we would never say that labor pains were the cause of a birth. The same is true with violence, which occasionally happens at times of great political change but is not the cause of such change.
Arendt's thoughts on violence helped me to clarify several aspects of the trend in right-wing violent language that I was tracking in the media. First, I realized that the use of violent language was not accidental, but was the product of a shift in the political philosophy on which the right-wing punditry built their ideas. The shift was from a rhetoric of parody and burlesque to one of violence and accusation. Second, Arendt helped me to clarify exactly what role "violence" was playing in the worldview of the right-wing pundits. Most right-wing pundits see the power of the state as residing ultimately in the monopoly over violence, an idea that comes from the writings of German philosopher Max Weber. This, however, is not the political philosophy that guided the framers of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, violent rhetoric is not just a question of linguistic style, but a sign that a political philosophy in conflict with American deliberative democracy has captured the imagination of many right-wing pundits. Many factors have led to the emergence of violence among right-wing pundits, but the events of 9/11 seem central. In the wake of the attacks, right-wing pundits grew ever more convinced that the continued survival of United States depended on its willingness to use violence. The more violent language filled the airwaves of America's broadcast media, the more this new and disturbing logic of violence and power seemed to saturate public thinking. Lastly, Arendt's writing helped me to see that the American form of deliberative democratic politics itself was a form of government crafted as a replacement for earlier forms of rule by violence. In a discussion of American politics, the opposite of violence has never been nonviolence, but participation -- specifically, participation in deliberative democracy. The quintessential American town hall meetings that Jefferson imagined happening amongst small, mostly agricultural communities in rural colonial America were not just a system for accomplishing the needs of the people but a bulwark against tyrannical rule that resulted from a royal monopoly on all forms of power.
In order to read the complete article HERE.
It's the Obscene Profits, Stupid! Exxon's Enormous Gains from the U.S. Keep Growing

Exxon is working to assure that whoever gets into the Oval Office doesn't try to tax some of their profits away.

How sad. Exxon Mobil, the universe's largest publicly traded company, which also happens to be enjoying some of its biggest profits ever thanks to the almost doubled price of oil during the past year, didn't quite live up to Wall Street expectations this week. In fact, its stock fell nearly 4 percent the day it announced its first quarter of 2008 earnings.
Unfortunately, this does not make the pain at the pump pulsing through the nation any more bearable. Apparently, Exxon could have made more profit, had it not chosen to hold back further gas price hikes. Instead, earnings in its refining business (which converts crude oil to gallons of useable gas) weren't as strong as it had wanted. Yes, that's right - Exxon would have made even more money had they passed more pain onto the public. They were just being "nice." Right.
As people contemplate paying $4 per gallon for gas, not to mention the havoc those higher oil prices wreak on their home fuel costs, Exxon isn't really skimming less off the top in order to be a Team America player. Nor does Exxon feel the same pain from these high oil prices that ordinary citizens feel while driving to school, work, the grocery store or childcare. The $21.7 million paycheck (18 percent more than last year) of Exxon's CEO, Rex Tillerson, certainly covers a whole lot of gas.
No, that Exxon didn't quite live up to Wall Street expectations is just pre-election spin, ensuring that whichever candidate gets into the Oval Office doesn't try to take some of their profits away by taxing them. (Not that they'd have to worry if John McCain wins the election.)
Exxon posted an almost $11 billion profit for the first quarter of 2008 on a staggering $117 billion in total revenue, which was up from $87.2 billion in revenue last year (or, more than a third of the projected 2008 $311 billion US deficit.) Part of Exxon's windfall still came from higher gas prices, which on average, rose about 30 percent over the year, as oil prices rose from $60 to $100 at the end of the last quarter it reported.
Plus, Exxon's earnings were up 17 percent versus the same quarter last year, pulling in the second-highest quarterly earnings in US history for any corporation. To put it in perspective, Exxon's last earnings for all of 2007 were a record $40.6 billion, which puts them in the running, if oil prices stay where they are, to come in at about 10 percent above that for 2008.
So, is Exxon joining the "go-green, don't be dependent on foreign oil" mantras popular in this election cycle? Are they spending some of that hard-earned cash on alternative energy sources? Not so much. Instead it was busy investing in itself, buying back $31.8 billion of its own stock out of that $40.6 billion profit, compared with just $3.3 billion in US capital investment. Says Tyson Slocum, Energy Director at Public Citizen, "This discrepancy certainly shows that motorists aren't getting any bank for their buck out of it."
And Exxon wasn't the only one struggling to beat their previous record profits. Oil companies around the world were feeling the love from record crude oil prices. Firms like BP and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, despite flat production over the quarter, posted stellar, even better than expected first quarter earnings, up 64 percent and 25 percent in profit respectively. ConocoPhillips' first-quarter earnings increased 17 percent to $4.1 billion.
On Friday, Chevron added to the oil company euphoria, posting a net income rise of 37 percent for the first quarter of 2008, and revenues of $65 billion, up from $33 billion, though also citing more limited refining profits (the 'downstream' part of their business - upstream is oil production). Like Exxon, Chevron also chose to use its profits to buy its own stock - underscoring that the best investment for oil companies is - oil companies. The firm bought back $2 billion of its own stock during the first quarter.

In order to read the complete article HERE.
Endless War: Is the U.S. Trying to Set Whole World on Fire?

The Iraq war won't end, but in the Pentagon they're already arguing about the next one.

The last war won't end, but in the Pentagon they're already arguing about the next one.
Let's start with that "last war" and see if we can get things straight. Just over five years ago, American troops entered Baghdad in battle mode, felling the Sunni-dominated government of dictator Saddam Hussein and declaring Iraq "liberated." In the wake of the city's fall, after widespread looting, the new American administrators dismantled the remains of Saddam's government in its hollowed out, trashed ministries; disassembled the Sunni-dominated Baathist Party which had ruled Iraq since the 1960s, sending its members home with news that there was no coming back; dismantled Saddam's 400,000 man army; and began to denationalize the economy. Soon, an insurgency of outraged Sunnis was raging against the American occupation.
After initially resisting democratic elections, American occupation administrators finally gave in to the will of the leading Shiite clergyman, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and agreed to sponsor them. In January 2005, these brought religious parties representing a long-oppressed Shiite majority to power, parties which had largely been in exile in neighboring Shiite Iran for years.
Now, skip a few years, and U.S. troops have once again entered Baghdad in battle mode. This time, they've been moving into the vast Sadr City Shiite slum "suburb" of eastern Baghdad, which houses perhaps two-and-a-half million closely packed inhabitants. If free-standing, Sadr City would be the second largest city in Iraq after the capital. This time, the forces facing American troops haven't put down their weapons, packed up, and gone home. This time, no one is talking about "liberation," or "freedom," or "democracy." In fact, no one is talking about much of anything.
And no longer is the U.S. attacking Sunnis. In the wake of the President's 2007 surge, the U.S. military is now officially allied with 90,000 Sunnis of the so-called Awakening Movement, mainly former insurgents, many of them undoubtedly once linked to the Baathist government U.S. forces overthrew in 2003. Meanwhile, American troops are fighting the Shiite militia of Muqtada al-Sadr, a cleric who seems now to be living in Iran, but whose spokesman in Najaf recently bitterly denounced that country for "seeking to share with the U.S. in influence over Iraq." And they are fighting the Sadrist Mahdi Army militia in the name of an Iraqi government dominated by another Shiite militia, the Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, whose ties to Iran are even closer.
Ten thousand Badr Corps militia members were being inducted into the Iraqi army (just as the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was demanding that the Mahdi Army militia disarm). This week, an official delegation from that government, which only recently received Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with high honors in Baghdad, took off for Tehran at American bidding to present "evidence" that the Iranians are arming their Sadrist enemies.
At the heart of this intra-sectarian struggle may be the fear that, in upcoming provincial elections, the Sadrists, increasingly popular for their resistance to the American occupation, might actually win. For the last few weeks, American troops have been moving deeper into Sadr City, implanting the reluctant security forces of the Maliki government 500-600 meters ahead of them. This is called "standing them up," "part of a strategy to build up the capability of the Iraqi security forces by letting them operate semi-autonomously of the American troops." It's clear, however, that, if Maliki's military were behind them, many might well disappear. (A number have already either put down their weapons, fled, or gone over to the Sadrists.)
How the Reverse Body Count Came -- and Went
The fighting in the heavily populated urban slums of Sadr City has been fierce, murderous, and destructive. It has quieted most of the talk about the "lowering of casualties" and of "violence" that was the singular hallmark of the surge year in Iraq. Though never commented upon, that remarkable year-long emphasis on the ever lessening number of corpses actually represented the return, in perversely reverse form, of the Vietnam era "body count."
In a guerrilla war situation in which there was no obvious territory to be taken and no clear way to establish what our previous Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, once called the "metrics" of victory or success, it was natural, as happened in Vietnam, to begin to count. If you couldn't conquer a city or a country, then there was a certain logic to the thought that victory would come if, one by one, you could "obliterate" -- to use a word suddenly back in the news -- the enemy.

In order to read the complete article HERE.
Who Will Tell the People?


By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I’ve had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today it’s this: People want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America.

They are not only tired of nation-building in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with so little to show for it. They sense something deeper — that we’re just not that strong anymore. We’re borrowing money to shore up our banks from city-states called Dubai and Singapore. Our generals regularly tell us that Iran is subverting our efforts in Iraq, but they do nothing about it because we have no leverage — as long as our forces are pinned down in Baghdad and our economy is pinned to Middle East oil.
Our president’s latest energy initiative was to go to Saudi Arabia and beg King Abdullah to give us a little relief on gasoline prices. I guess there was some justice in that. When you, the president, after 9/11, tell the country to go shopping instead of buckling down to break our addiction to oil, it ends with you, the president, shopping the world for discount gasoline.
We are not as powerful as we used to be because over the past three decades, the Asian values of our parents’ generation — work hard, study, save, invest, live within your means — have given way to subprime values: “You can have the American dream — a house — with no money down and no payments for two years.”
That’s why Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous defense of why he did not originally send more troops to Iraq is the mantra of our times: “You go to war with the army you have.” Hey, you march into the future with the country you have — not the one that you need, not the one you want, not the best you could have.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.
How could this be? We are a great power. How could we be borrowing money from Singapore? Maybe it’s because Singapore is investing billions of dollars, from its own savings, into infrastructure and scientific research to attract the world’s best talent — including Americans.
And us? Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, just told a Senate hearing that cutbacks in government research funds were resulting in “downsized labs, layoffs of post docs, slipping morale and more conservative science that shies away from the big research questions.” Today, she added, “China, India, Singapore ... have adopted biomedical research and the building of biotechnology clusters as national goals. Suddenly, those who train in America have significant options elsewhere.”
Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.
Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.
I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”
It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach for America. They want our country to matter again. They want it to be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, “no one can touch us.”

We Must Imagine a Life Without Oil

The era of cheap, abundant petroleum is just about over. How ready are we to change our habits?

It used to be that only environmentalists and paranoids warned about running out of oil. Not anymore. As climate change did over the past few years, peak oil seems poised to become the next big idea commanding the attention of governments, businesses and citizens the world over. The arrival of $119-a-barrel crude and $4-a-gallon gasoline this spring are but the most obvious signs that global oil production has or soon will peak. With global demand inexorably rising, a limited supply will bring higher, more volatile prices and eventually shortages that could provoke -- to quote the title of the must-see peak oil documentary -- the end of suburbia. If the era of cheap, abundant oil is indeed coming to a close, the world's economy and, paradoxically, the fight against climate change could be in deep trouble.
Though largely unnoticed by the world media, a decisive moment in the peak oil debate came last September, when James Schlesinger declared that the "peakists" were right. You don't get closer to the American establishment and energy business than Schlesinger, who has served as chair of the Atomic Energy Commission, head of the CIA, Defense Secretary, Energy Secretary and adviser to countless oil companies. In a speech to a conference sponsored by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, Schlesinger said, "It's no longer the case that we have a few voices crying in the wilderness. The battle is over. The peakists have won." Schlesinger added that many oil company CEOs privately agree that peak oil is imminent but don't say so publicly.
One who does is Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell. Without using the term "peak oil," van der Veer warned in January, "After 2015, easily accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up with demand."
Of course, peak oil could arrive sooner than 2015; columnist George Monbiot has claimed in the Guardian that a Citibank report calculates the date at 2012. But even 2015 leaves a very short time in which to prepare, because modern societies were built on cheap, abundant oil.
"The world has never faced a problem like this," warned a 2005 study funded by George W. Bush's Energy Department. "Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary."
The United States, with its two-hour commutes, three-car families, atrophied mass transit and petroleum-based food system, is most vulnerable to an oil shock. But similar vulnerabilities exist in most industrial societies, not to mention the roaring economies of China and India, where oil consumption is rising faster even than GDP as newly middle-class consumers buy the cars they have long dreamed of.
At first glance, one might think that peak oil would help the fight against climate change. After all, less available oil should translate into less oil consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions. But modern civilization, to borrow George W. Bush's term, is addicted to oil. If peak oil arrives before the addiction is treated, the junkie will seek even more dangerous ways to get his fix.

To read more HERE.
So Much For "Ethanol Diplomacy"
Posted by BoRev, BoRev

Castro and Chavez were right, the Hertitage Foundation was wrong. Ethanol is having a negative impact on world food supply.

Feel that rumbling in your tummy? That’s because the world is OUT OF FOOD. Thanks to greedy Iowa farmers and some deal between Bush and Brazil, Americans have been putting the last of Earth’s ingestible resources into our gas tanks instead of our mouths and yet we’ve all still managed to invade Iraq for oil and become morbidly obese. Anyway now we’re out of corn and everyone is dying and it’s all the press can talk about.
Obviously experts had seen this global food crisis coming for years now, so we’d been warned, right? Here’s what “Perfect Latin American Idiot” Alvaro Vargas Llosa wrote in the Washington Post last spring:

“Incidentally, ethanol is making Chavez and Castro nervous. One proof is the hysterical article Castro wrote for Granma, Cuba's official newspaper, lashing at those who want ‘to convert food into combustibles’ and accusing them of wanting to condemn to ‘premature death and thirst more than 3 billion people of the world.’”

Ha ha, oops! We’ve got a treasury of embarrassingly so-last-year ethanol predictions, after the jump.
Investor’s Business Daily:

“Could lowly switch grass mow down the petropower tyranny of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez? A U.S.-Brazil ethanol pact signed this week may supply the fuel to do just that.”

Huffington Post:

“Almost immediately Fidel Castro weighed in from his sickbed writing an article for the Communist Party newspaper 'Gramma', that food stocks for millions of people would be threatened, "...you will see how many people among the hungry masses will no longer consume corn". Forever in lockstep with his mentor, Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, the purveyor of OPEC rigged prices of oil, fleecing both the rich and poor throughout the world, echoed Castro's outrage. This, in an effort to embarrass the Brazilian American initiative and to protect his turf as the local pusher to the neighborhood oil ‘addictionados’”

National Public Radio:

DAN GRECH: The U.S. and Brazil recently formed a partnership on ethanol. The deal is modest, and it won't do much to reduce American dependence on oil. But The Miami Herald's Phil Gunson says it was enough to threaten Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
PHIL GUNSON: He was severely irritated by the Bush initiative and has been stung into responding.Chavez said recently the land should be used to feed people, not to fill "rich people's cars."

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva:

"I still don't know the technical or scientific basis of [Chavez’] criticisms [of ethanol]”

The Heritage Foundation:

“The memorandum of understanding signed in Sao Paolo may well be the first building block of a biofuels alliance that could provide an alternative to the anti-American oil-and-gas, quasi-socialist alliance that is emerging between Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and Ecuador.”
Yeah, either that or "massive starvation." But hey at least we finally defeated socialism.


Artificial Foods and Corporate Crops: Can We Escape the 'Frankenstate'?

Taking a technological approach to agriculture has put the future of the world's food supply in jeopardy.
The following excerpt is reprinted from Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds by Claire Hope Cummings. Copyright © 2008 by Claire Hope Cummings. By permission of Beacon Press.

On a frozen island near the North Pole, a huge hole has been blasted out of the side of an Arctic mountain, and a tunnel has been drilled deep into the rock. When the facility under construction here is completed, it will be lined with one-meter-thick concrete, fitted with two high-security blast-proof airlock doors, and built to withstand nuclear war, global warming, terrorism, and the collapse of the earth's energy supplies.
It's known as the "Doomsday Vault," and in it will be stored millions of seeds and mankind's hope for the future of the world's food supply. The idea is that in the event of massive ecological destruction, those seeds could be used to reconstruct the planet's agricultural systems. Exactly who might remain to begin replanting the earth after such a catastrophe is only one of the questions this astounding project raises. The more immediate question is, are seeds in peril?
The answer is yes, especially the seeds that provide us with food, fiber, and fuel. Both the diversity and the integrity of seeds are threatened, in the wild and on our farms. They are being put at risk by agricultural technologies, patents and corporate ownership, and the overall degradation of the environment. The plight of seeds is one of the most important environmental stories of our time. Until now, however, this critical issue has not received the attention it deserves.
Seeds are as critical to our survival as air, water, and soil. And yet despite the everyday miracles that they perform, we tend to take them for granted. Seeds sustain the beauty and vitality of the earth. Seeds are essential to the regenerative capacity of the planet. We will need their natural resilience and adaptability even more as temperatures rise.
Biologically, each seed has a unique way of fulfilling its promise. Taken together, the world's seeds maintain the plant systems that keep the planet breathing. Every breath we take has been exhaled by a plant which turned it into oxygen for us. Seeds have always been our silent partners in maintaining life on earth.
People and plants coevolved through the ages, and that relationship has been mutually beneficial. Seed plants dependably meet our needs, producing the corn and rice we eat, the flax and cotton we weave, and the oak and pine we use for shelter. Eighty percent of the people in the world still rely on plants as their primary source of medicine. The remains of long-dead plants provide all of us with our fossil fuels. As metaphors, seeds are a rich source of inspiration in art, literature, and religion. We cannot afford to lose any more of this generosity, this beauty, this abundance.
We find ourselves at a dramatic turning point for life on earth. Population and consumption are rapidly expanding. Industrial food production is exhausting the planet's basic biological support systems, making them even more vulnerable to the effects of global warming. The natural world is experiencing catastrophic losses of biodiversity, fresh water, and fertile soil. All of these trends are threatening seeds and forcing us to take a careful look at how we will feed ourselves in the future. It comes down to this: Whoever controls the future of seeds controls the future of life on earth.
Is industrial agriculture, with its focus on chemical and genetic technologies, the best choice for ensuring a healthy future? Genetic engineering is a commercial technology controlled by private corporations, who use it to dominate agricultural production from seed to stomach and to profit from every bite. Given the enormous environmental stress the planet is under right now and increasing demands on our natural resources from all forms of human activity, can this one technology provide for our food and environmental security? The answer is, unequivocally, no.
There are five solid reasons that genetic engineering is not right for agriculture. One: It's bad science. It was developed on the basis of flawed assumptions which have since been discredited by the scientific community.
Two: It's bad biology. It was deployed without regard for its potential for genetic contamination and its risks to human health.
Three: It's bad social policy. It puts control over seeds and the fundamentals of our food and farms into the hands of a few corporations who have their own, not our, best interests in mind.
Four: It's bad economics. After billions of dollars and thirty years, only a few products have been commercialized, and they offer nothing new. No one asked for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and given a choice, consumers would reject them.
Five: It's bad farming. GMOs don't address the real issues plaguing agriculture; they're designed to substitute for or increase the use of proprietary weed and pest control chemicals. Patented and genetically altered seeds perpetuate the very worst problems of the industrial food system, and they are undermining the autonomy of the farmers who use them.

To read more HERE.

John Ackerman

Invitación

Martes 13 de mayo, 19 horas,

Casa Lamm,

presentación del libro

"Más allá del acceso a la información"
(texto que el IFAI trató de censurar el año pasado),

de John Ackerman