Going Down the Road

by JIM HIGHTOWER

[from the September 2, 2002 issue]

Where's the Department of Homeland Security when we really need it?

I suppose that Homeland czar Tom Ridge is too busy with his color codes and his TIPS snitch patrols to notice or care that dozens of American communities presently find themselves under assault by foreign powers with names like RWE, Suez, Vivendi and Perrier. These global corporate raiders are grabbing for our most essential public resource: water. In just the past few years, such transnational conglomerates (along with such US players as Bechtel, T. Boone Pickens, Monsanto and, until recently, Enron) have quietly privatized all or part of the water delivery systems in Atlanta, Berlin, Bolivia, Buenos Aires, Casablanca, Chattanooga, Houston, Jacksonville, Jersey City, Lexington, Ky., Peoria, San Francisco and many other places (some of which have reverted to public ownership), plus laid claim to whole bodies of water, including the Midwestern Ogallala Aquifer, Blue Lake in Alaska and Canada's huge James Bay.

The water profiteers are seizing control by using weaselly politicians, campaign contributions, outright bribery, hordes of lobbyists, multimillion-dollar propaganda campaigns, NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank. An example of their reach can be found in the Water Investment Act moving through Congress, a generally worthy bill to provide funds for local cities to upgrade or expand their water systems. But industry lobbyists have tucked two little bombs into it, which remain in the House version: (1) a city cannot get federal financing unless it "has considered" privatizing its water system; and (2) private water corporations could get public subsidies for their water schemes.

The Grassroots Rebellion

While politicians--from Congress to city halls--have been bamboozled by privatization hucksters, who promise to bring "market efficiency" to the distribution of scarce water, ordinary folks have shown themselves to be way warier of surrendering public control. They know instinctively that the corporations are simply trying to grab a monopoly over a substance no one can live without, then squeeze maximum profits from it by firing experienced city workers, slashing wages, raising consumer rates, cutting service and ignoring repairs.

The great story here, untold by the establishment media, is of courageous rebels who are daring to step in front of the Great Corporate Water Rush. Meet two of these.

Hiroshi Kanno, 64, works a small farm in central Wisconsin. He stands only 5'6" tall, but--with his family and neighbors--he became a giant killer, beginning two years ago when the multibillion-dollar Perrier Group arrived in the towns of Newport and New Haven. It informed startled locals that it had a wondrous plan to begin continuous pumping of 500 gallons per minute of the area's pure spring water into its assorted bottles (Perrier's labels include Arrowhead, Calistoga, Deer Park, Oasis, Ozarka, Poland Spring and Utopia).

Who Owns Water?

by MAUDE BARLOW & TONY CLARKE

[from the September 2, 2002 issue]

"Water promises to be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th century: the precious commodity that determines the wealth of nations."

As the World Summit on Sustainable Development draws closer, clear lines of contention are forming, particularly around the future of the world's freshwater resources. The setting of the summit paints the picture. Government and corporate delegates to the September meeting will gather in the lavish hotels and convention facilities of Sandton, the fabulously wealthy Johannesburg suburb that houses huge estates, English gardens and swimming pools, and has become South Africa's new financial epicenter. There, they will meet with World Bank and World Trade Organization officials to set the stage for the privatization of water.

At the same time, activists from South Africa and around the world with a very different vision will gather in very different settings to fight for a water-secure future. One such venue will be Alexandra Township, a poverty-stricken community where sanitation, electricity and water services have been privatized and cut off to those who cannot afford them. Alexandra is situated right next door to Sandton and divided only by a river so polluted that it has cholera warning signs on its banks. There could not be a more fitting setting for Rio+10 than South Africa, because neighboring Sandton and Alexandra represent the great divide that characterizes the current debate over water. Moreover, South Africa is the birthplace of one of the nucleus groups that form the heart of a new global civil society movement dedicated to saving the world's water as part of the global commons.

This movement originates in a fight for survival. The world is running out of fresh water. Humanity is polluting, diverting and depleting the wellspring of life at a startling rate. With every passing day, our demand for fresh water outpaces its availability, and thousands more people are put at risk. Already, the social, political and economic impacts of water scarcity are rapidly becoming a destabilizing force, with water-related conflicts springing up around the globe. Quite simply, unless we dramatically change our ways, between one-half and two-thirds of humanity will be living with severe freshwater shortages within the next quarter-century.

It seemed to sneak up on us, or at least those of us living in the North. Until the past decade, the study of fresh water was left to highly specialized groups of experts--hydrologists, engineers, scientists, city planners, weather forecasters and others with a niche interest in what so many of us took for granted. Many knew about the condition of water in the Third World, including the millions who die of waterborne diseases every year. But this was seen as an issue of poverty, poor sanitation and injustice--all areas that could be addressed in the just world for which we were fighting.

Now, however, an increasing number of voices--including human rights and environmental groups, think tanks and research organizations, official international agencies and thousands of community groups around the world--are sounding the alarm. The earth's fresh water is finite and small, representing less than one half of 1 percent of the world's total water stock. Not only are we adding 85 million new people to the planet every year, but our per capita use of water is doubling every twenty years, at more than twice the rate of human population growth. A legacy of factory farming, flood irrigation, the construction of massive dams, toxic dumping, wetlands and forest destruction, and urban and industrial pollution has damaged the Earth's surface water so badly that we are now mining the underground water reserves far faster than nature can replenish them.

The earth's "hot stains"--areas where water reserves are disappearing--include the Middle East, Northern China, Mexico, California and almost two dozen countries in Africa. Today thirty-one countries and over 1 billion people completely lack access to clean water. Every eight seconds a child dies from drinking contaminated water. The global freshwater crisis looms as one of the greatest threats ever to the survival of our planet.

Washington Consensus

Tragically, this global call for action comes in an era guided by the principles of the so-called Washington Consensus, a model of economics rooted in the belief that liberal market economics constitutes the one and only economic choice for the whole world. Competitive nation-states are abandoning natural resources protection and privatizing their ecological commons. Everything is now for sale, even those areas of life, such as social services and natural resources, that were once considered the common heritage of humanity. Governments around the world are abdicating their responsibilities to protect the natural resources in their territory, giving authority away to the private companies involved in resource exploitation.

Faced with the suddenly well-documented freshwater crisis, governments and international institutions are advocating a Washington Consensus solution: the privatization and commodification of water. Price water, they say in chorus; put it up for sale and let the market determine its future. For them, the debate is closed. Water, say the World Bank and the United Nations, is a "human need," not a "human right." These are not semantics; the difference in interpretation is crucial. A human need can be supplied many ways, especially for those with money. No one can sell a human right.

So a handful of transnational corporations, backed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, are aggressively taking over the management of public water services in countries around the world, dramatically raising the price of water to the local residents and profiting especially from the Third World's desperate search for solutions to its water crisis. Some are startlingly open; the decline in freshwater supplies and standards has created a wonderful venture opportunity for water corporations and their investors, they boast. The agenda is clear: Water should be treated like any other tradable good, with its use determined by the principles of profit.

It should come as no surprise that the private sector knew before most of the world about the looming water crisis and has set out to take advantage of what it considers to be blue gold. According to Fortune, the annual profits of the water industry now amount to about 40 percent of those of the oil sector and are already substantially higher than the pharmaceutical sector, now close to $1 trillion. But only about 5 percent of the world's water is currently in private hands, so it is clear that we are talking about huge profit potential as the water crisis worsens. In 1999 there were more than $15 billion worth of water acquisitions in the US water industry alone, and all the big water companies are now listed on the stock exchanges.

Water Lords

There are ten major corporate players now delivering freshwater services for profit. The two biggest are both from France--Vivendi Universal and Suez--considered to be the General Motors and Ford of the global water industry. Between them, they deliver private water and wastewater services to more than 200 million customers in 150 countries and are in a race, along with others such as Bouygues Saur, RWE-Thames Water and Bechtel-United Utilities, to expand to every corner of the globe. In the United States, Vivendi operates through its subsidiary, USFilter; Suez via its subsidiary, United Water; and RWE by way of American Water Works.

They are aided by the World Bank and the IMF, which are increasingly forcing Third World countries to abandon their public water delivery systems and contract with the water giants in order to be eligible for debt relief. The performance of these companies in Europe and the developing world has been well documented: huge profits, higher prices for water, cutoffs to customers who cannot pay, no transparency in their dealings, reduced water quality, bribery and corruption.

Water for profit takes a number of other forms. The bottled-water industry is one of the fastest-growing and least regulated industries in the world, expanding at an annual rate of 20 percent. Last year close to 90 billion liters of bottled water were sold around the world--most of it in nonreusable plastic containers, bringing in profits of $22 billion to this highly polluting industry. Bottled-water companies like Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Pepsi are engaged in a constant search for new water supplies to feed the insatiable appetite of this business. In rural communities all over the world, corporate interests are buying up farmlands, indigenous lands, wilderness tracts and whole water systems, then moving on when sources are depleted. Fierce disputes are being waged in many places over these "water takings," especially in the Third World. As one company explains, water is now "a rationed necessity that may be taken by force."

Corporations are now involved in the construction of massive pipelines to carry fresh water long distances for commercial sale while others are constructing supertankers and giant sealed water bags to transport vast amounts of water across the ocean to paying customers. Says the World Bank, "One way or another, water will soon be moved around the world as oil is now." The mass movement of bulk water could have catalytic environmental impacts. Some proposed projects would reverse the flow of mighty rivers in Canada's north, the environmental impact of which would be greater than China's Three Gorges Dam.

The Television Project

is an educational organization. We help parents understand how television affects their families and community, and propose alternatives that foster positive emotional, cognitive, and spiritual development within families and communities.

Consider the following information:

• 98% of American households have at least one TV set.
• On average, children aged 2-5 watch 14 hours of network television, per week.
• Television viewing increases aggressive behavior.
• Children imitate what they see.
• Children under the age of 5 cannot separate fact from fantasy.
• 66% of Americans eat dinner while watching television.
• When shopping with a parent, on average, children request a brand-named item 13-18 times.

IRAQ: U.S. DEATHS BY ETHNICITY

The Wal-Mart You Don't Know

The giant retailer's low prices often come with a high cost. Wal-Mart's relentless pressure can crush the companies it does business with and force them to send jobs overseas. Are we shopping our way straight to the unemployment line?

A gallon-sized jar of whole pickles is something to behold. The jar is the size of a small aquarium. The fat green pickles, floating in swampy juice, look reptilian, their shapes exaggerated by the glass. It weighs 12 pounds, too big to carry with one hand. The gallon jar of pickles is a display of abundance and excess; it is entrancing, and also vaguely unsettling. This is the product that Wal-Mart fell in love with: Vlasic's gallon jar of pickles.

Wal-Mart priced it at $2.97--a year's supply of pickles for less than $3! "They were using it as a 'statement' item," says Pat Hunn, who calls himself the "mad scientist" of Vlasic's gallon jar. "Wal-Mart was putting it before consumers, saying, This represents what Wal-Mart's about. You can buy a stinkin' gallon of pickles for $2.97. And it's the nation's number-one brand."

Therein lies the basic conundrum of doing business with the world's largest retailer. By selling a gallon of kosher dills for less than most grocers sell a quart, Wal-Mart may have provided a ser-vice for its customers. But what did it do for Vlasic? The pickle maker had spent decades convincing customers that they should pay a premium for its brand. Now Wal-Mart was practically giving them away. And the fevered buying spree that resulted distorted every aspect of Vlasic's operations, from farm field to factory to financial statement.

Indeed, as Vlasic discovered, the real story of Wal-Mart, the story that never gets told, is the story of the pressure the biggest retailer relentlessly applies to its suppliers in the name of bringing us "every day low prices." It's the story of what that pressure does to the companies Wal-Mart does business with, to U.S. manufacturing, and to the economy as a whole. That story can be found floating in a gallon jar of pickles at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is not just the world's largest retailer. It's the world's largest company--bigger than ExxonMobil, General Motors, and General Electric. The scale can be hard to absorb. Wal-Mart sold $244.5 billion worth of goods last year. It sells in three months what

number-two retailer Home Depot sells in a year. And in its own category of general merchandise and groceries, Wal-Mart no longer has any real rivals. It does more business than Target, Sears, Kmart, J.C. Penney, Safeway, and Kroger combined. "Clearly," says Edward Fox, head of Southern Methodist University's J.C. Penney Center for Retailing Excellence, "Wal-Mart is more powerful than any retailer has ever been." It is, in fact, so big and so furtively powerful as to have become an entirely different order of corporate being.

Wal-Mart wields its power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible prices to its customers. At Wal-Mart, that goal is never reached. The retailer has a clear policy for suppliers: On basic products that don't change, the price Wal-Mart will pay, and will charge shoppers, must drop year after year. But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to squeeze profit-killing concessions from vendors. To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas.

Cat de multa tehnologie suntem capabili sa suportam ?

Anul 2010. Va uitati linistit la emisiunea de stiri preferata pentru a vedea ce se mai intampla in lumea nebuna a tehnologiei. Emisiunea se intrerupe pentru un calup de publicitate. Va ganditi ca este momentul potrivit sa va turnati o cafea sau un ceai, dar pe ecran apare chipul iubitei dumneavostra care va indeamna sa cumparati ultimul model de mp3 player cu hard disc miniatural de 1,5 TB si care cantareste numai 20 de grame (ideal in orice situatie) oferit cu generozitate de reteaua de distributie Wall-Stone.

Nu aveti timp sa va reveniti din momentul de stupefactie; pentru ca urmeaza un clip publicitar in care cel mai bun prieten va recomanda un automobil ultimul tip, personalizat exact pe dorintele pe care le-ati expus ultimului dealer cu care ati vorbit despre schimbarea masinii.

Contrariat, inchideti televizorul, dar ati uitat sa deconectati Internetul. Din boxele media center-ului rasuna suav vocea iubitei dumneavostra care va aduce aminte ca numai prezervativele cu latex de ultima generatie va vor feri de neplacerea urmasilor nedoriti.

Halucinati ? Ati intrat in scenariul prost al unui SF de a mana a doua ? Nu ! Bun venit in lumea minunata a RFID-ului ! (unde stim totul despre cum sa ne servim clientul favorit)

Cand inventiile bune sunt aplicate prost

RFID-ul (radio frequency identification), despre care se vorbeste din ce in ce mai mult si mai insistent in ultimul timp (numai la CeBIT 2005 au fost cel putin cinci prezentari despre beneficiile, implicatiile si metodele de aplicare ale tehnologiei) nu este o inventie de ultima ora, asa cum ar crede cei mai putin avizati.

Tehnologia s-a impus in al doilea razboi mondial, cand o inventie cam ciudata pentru vremea respectiva, radarul, i-a ajutat pe britanici sa castige Batalia Angliei. Initial, radarul nu putea distinge intre avioanele britanice si cele germane, dar introducerea unui emitator IFF (identification friend or foe) a permis diferentierea semnalelor emise.

Timp de aproape 50 de ani nu s-a mai auzit nimic despre RFID, pana cand in 1999 cei de la MIT au inceput sa studieze modul in care lanturile de distributie ar putea sa beneficieze de aceasta tehnologie.

Initial, ideea era generoasa: cumparatorul se indreapta spre casa cu ultimele sale achizitii, si in loc sa mai astepte ca angajatul sa scaneze codul de bare al fiecarui produs in parte, pentru a face totalul, totul are loc instantaneu, un cititor RFID identificand toate produsele pe baza etichetei RFID si cerand doar introducerea cartii de credit pentru a retine suma totala.
Si totul datorita unei etichete minunate. Iar in plus, lantul de retail isi poate actualiza automat stocurile, stie care este starea produsului si toate detaliile de care are nevoie pentru a face o oferta competitiva cu care sa isi mai deschida inca 5 magazine.

Si toate acestea datorita unei etichete minune, RFID. Cel putina asa suna secenariile fericite ale retailerilor si hypermarket-urilor. In realitate insa...

Tehnologia RFID este deja printre noi

Sistemul RFID se bazeaza pe identificarea oricarui obiect pe care s-a atasat o eticheta ce emite un cod electronic unic. (eticheta RFID).
Pentru ca o eticheta sa fie identificata este nevoie de un cititor RFID care poate fi plasat practic in orice zona.
Nici o eticheta RFID nu este identica cu alta, asa cum se intampla in acest moment cu codurile de bare si de aceea primele sisteme RFID au fost introduse in cladirile in care era nevoie de nivele certe de securitate.
Insa tehnologia este aplicabila pentru orice obiect, chiar si pentru cele aflate in miscare, si de aceea nu a durat foarte mult pana a atras atentia celor implicati in distributie.

Spre deosebire de codurile de bare, folosite in acest moment ca standard, etichetele RFID au avantajul de a putea contine si alte date in afara de pret, precum caracteristicile sale, data la care a fost mutat dintr-un loc in altul, temperatura la care se afla.

In functie de alimentare, etichtele RFID pot fi pasive sau active.

Etichetele RFID pasive nu au o sursa de energie proprie si dimensiunile lor sunt de 0,4 x 0,4 la o grosime mai mica decat cea a unei foi de hartie. In momentul in care sunt strabatute de semnalul emis de antena cititorului RFID, aceste etichete se activeaza si transmit ca raspuns informatiile stocate in prealabil. Acest raspuns este de obicei un numar de identificare, pe care receptorul RFID il decodeaza si il interpreteaza. Raza de actiune in care etichetele pot interactiona cu cititorul este variabila de la 10 mm la 5 metri.
Cele active sunt dotate cu o sursa de energie, pentru a stoca in memorie datele cu care au fost inregistrate si pot fi citite si scrise si de la distante mai mari. In acest moment o astfel de eticheta RFID activa are dimensiunea unei monede, o raza de actiune de cativa zeci de metri si o durata de viata a bateriei de cativa ani.

Datorita acestor performante sunt insa prea scumpe pentru a fi utilizate in activitatea de retail si pentru distribuitori mult mai interesante sunt cele pasive. Numai ca si acestea sunt inca prea scumpe, pretul unei astfel de etichete fiind de 40 de centi. In aproximativ doi ani, expertii considera ca pretul ar putea ajunge la 5 centi, dar pentru cei din sectorul de retail si asa este prea mult.

Asa ca pana cand nu vor trece 6 - 8 ani, (perioada in care Gartner si Forrester estimeaza ca pretul va ajunge la 1 cent), tehnologia RFID nu va fi adoptata la scara larga, ramanand subiectul unor experimente, pentru marile companii de retail ca Metro sau Wal Mart.

UNDE NI SUNT?

Paul Goma, Paris, 16 ianuarie 2005 Site-ul Paul Goma: http://paulgoma.free.fr/index.html "In 12 noiembrie 2004, la Bucuresti, s-a anuntat : “Comisia Internationala pentru Studierea Holocaustului în România“ – sub supravegherea ambasadorilor SUA si Israelului în România - a tras concluzia prin glasului lui Elie Wiesel: “Holocaustul în România a fost posibil ca urmare a antisemitismului cu radacini adânci în istoria politica si culturala a tarii”[..] Privesc lista celor din “Comisie”: nu-l vad pe Oisteanu - unde e Oisteanu, membru eminent al clanului criminal Rautu?; nici pe Andrei Cornea - unde-i Andrei Cornea cu tot cu parintele sau Paul Cornea?; nici pe tovarasu’ Tesu de la “Munca” dimpreuna cu al sau carnetel-negru în care îi lista pe dusmanii poporului - au oare de ce? Sa fi fost înlocuiti în ultimul moment de doi-trei goi figuranti-activi (ca toti proaspetii convertiti, mai catolici decât Rabinul-General) - ca Pippidi, M.D. Gheorghiu, Totok? Dar unde-i D. C. Giurescu? - sa fi lins el pe degeaba ceea ce a lins? Dar Gabriel Andreescu? Dar Dan Pavel? Dar Laszlo Alexandru, dar Pecican? Dar Buzura, Doctorul Honoris Causa de la Ierusalim, rasplatit pentru isprava înalt culturala de a fi trimis la topit un volum de documente care probau si responsabilitatea evreilor? Dar Breban, dar Tepeneag - cu stindardul lor pe care scrie, citet: “Ed. Reichman”? Dar Marta Petreu cu I. Vartic, învataceii tovarasului Ion Ianosi?"[..] Text integral

How corporations are planning to Take Control of Local Water Services

Polaris Institute, January 2003

At the dawn of the 21st century, a global water crisis is looming. According to the United Nations, 1.3 billion people in the world today lack access to clean water while 2.5 billion do not have adequate sewage and sanitation. No less than 31 countries are considered to be in water stressed areas. Worldwide demand for water is doubling every 20 years, twice the rate of population growth. By the year 2025, demand for fresh water is expected to outstrip global supply by 56 percent.

For most people around the world, water is not to be treated like any other commodity to be bought and sold in the market place. On the contrary, water is essential for both life and nature. Not only humans, but plants, animals, and the planet itself depend on having access to adequate supplies of water for their very survival. For these reasons, water is considered to be a public trust. That’s why water services are generally run by public and municipal systems in most countries today.

Yet, keeping water as a public trust is increasingly being tested. In recent decades, a global water industry has emerged in which for-profit corporations are taking control of public water services around the world. More and more, cash starved governments with aging water infrastructures [e.g. pipes] are turning to corporations to provide water service delivery and waste water treatment. The new trend line is water privatization. Through long-term contracts, corporations are grabbing lucrative profits by providing essential water services. “Water is a critical and necessary ingredient to the daily life of every To date, there have been at least three models of water privatization: (1) the human being, and it is an equally complete sell off by governments of public water delivery and treatment systems powerful ingredient for profitable to private corporations [which took place in Britain]; (2) the granting of long term manufacturing companies.” leases or concessions allowing corporations to takeover the delivery of water --- Mike Stark, a senior executive at US services and the collection of revenues [which has been the French model]; and (3) the more restricted approach where corporations are contracted by governments to manage water services for an administration fee. No matter which model is used, experience shows that transnational corporations, regardless of how responsibly they try to carry out their business, are simply not designed to provide public services to all people on an equitable basis. Indeed, the delivery of water services is based on the ‘ability to pay,’ which means that poor communities frequently end-up without adequate services. Nor are corporations organized to conserve natural resources like water. Since maximizing profits often means encouraging increased consumption, it is not in the interest of water corporations to promote water conservation.

The main purpose of this pamphlet is to provide a look at how the major corporate players in the global water industry today are able to make use of international trade agreements and financial regimes to accelerate and consolidate the privatization of public water systems. The pamphlet identifies who the major water corporations are, how they operate, and what their track record has been in providing water services around the world. It also provides a few examples of new rules being quietly negotiated in trade agreements like the GATS, that support the corporate takeover of water. In addition, this booklet exposes how water corporations exploit the global south by profiting from the financial levers of the IMF and World Bank.

In short, this pamphlet is about the water grab that is going global. We begin with a brief look at some of the battlefronts in communities around the world where people are organizing to fight for their water rights. More

Corporartistii romani

Neopaganismul

“esti tot timpul suparat ca se intampla atatea grozavii intr-o tara crestina. Judeci gresit. Trebuie sa te gandesti ca ne aflam intr-o tara pagana si trebuie sa fii multumit ca n-au inceput inca prigoana impotriva crestinlor”

Trist, dar adevarat

Fiica lui Billy Graham, intr-un interviu in emisiunea Early Show, a fost intrebata de Jane Clayson, cu privire la atacurile din 11 septembrie 2001:"Cum a putut Dumnezeu sa lase sa se intimple asa ceva?"Anne Graham a dat un raspuns foarte profund si inspirat:"Cred ca Dumnezeu este adinc intristat de aceasta, la fel ca si noi, dar de noi de ani de zile. Îi spunem sa iasa din scolile noastre, din guvernul si din vietile noastre. Si, fiind El un adevarat gentleman, cred ca pur si simplu, S-a dat calm la o parte. Cum putem noi sa-I cerem binecuvintarea si protectia Sa daca Ii cerem sa ne lase in pace? (În lumina recentelor evenimente, atacuri teroriste, atacuri armate in scoli, etc.) Cred ca totul a inceput cind Madeleine Murray O'Hare (care a fost ucisa, iar corpul ei a fost gasit recent) a afirmat ca nu dorea nici un fel de rugaciuni in scolile noastre, iar noi am spus O.K. Apoi, cineva a spus ca mai bine nu am citi Biblia in scoli (Biblia care spune sa nu ucizi, sa nu furi si sa-ti iubesti aproapele ca pe tine insuti), iar noi am spus O.K. Apoi, dr. Benjamin Spock a spus ca nu ar trebui sa ne plesnim copiii atunci cind se poarta urit, pentru ca aceasta le-ar afecta mica lor
personalitate si stima de sine (fiul dr. Spock s-a sinucis). Iar noi am spus ca un expert trebuie sa stie ce vorbeste, asa ca am spus O.K. Apoi, cineva a spus ca profesorii si dirigintii nu ar trebui sa ii disciplineze pe copii atunci cind gresesc. Iar conducatorii de scoli au spus ca nici un membru al personalului sa nu atinga vreun elev atunci cind se poarta urit, pentru ca scolile nu au nevoie de publicitate proasta si in nici un caz de procese. (Totusi, exista o mare diferenta intre a disciplina si a atinge, a bate, a plesni, a lovi, a umili, etc.). Iar noi am spus O.K. Apoi, cine stie ce membru inteligent al consiliului de conducere al vreunei scoli a spus ca, baietii fiind baieti, vor face dragoste oricum, deci ar trebui sa le dam fiilor nostri prezervative. Asa, ei vor putea sa se distreze cit vor, iar noi nu vom trebui sa le spunem parintilor ca le-au primit de la scoala. Iar noi am spus O.K. Apoi, unii dintre alesii nostri de virf au spus ca nu conteaza ceea ce fac in viata lor privata atit timp cit isi fac treaba la slujba. De acord, a spus fiecare din noi, mie nu-mi pasa de ceea ce face altcineva, inclusiv presedintele, in viata sa privata, atit timp cit am o slujba si economia merge bine.Apoi, cineva a spus sa tiparim reviste cu femei goale, in semn de respect si apreciere a frumusetii feminine. Iar noi am spus O.K. Apoi, altcineva a impins acea apreciere un pas mai departe, publicind fotografii cu copii goi, si inca mai departe, afisindu-le pe Internet. Iar noi am spus O.K., au dreptul la libera exprimare. Apoi, industria show-business-ului a spus: hai sa facem show-uri TV si filme care sa promoveze indepartarea de Dumnezeu, violenta si sexul ilicit, sa inregistram melodii care sa incurajeze violurile, drogurile, crimele, sinuciderea si temele satanice. Iar noi am spus ca nu este decit entertainment (amuzament), nu are efecte adverse si oricum nu o ia nimeni in serios, asa ca totul a mers inainte. Iar acum ne intrebam de ce copiii nostri nu au constiinta, de ce nu disting binele de rau, de ce nu ii deranjeaza sa ucida pe straini, pe colegii de clasa sau pe ei insisi. Probabil ca, daca ne-am gindi mai mult, ne-am da
seama de ce. Cred ca totul se reduce la faptul ca ceea ce vei semana, aceea vei si culege. Noi Ii spunem lui Dumnezeu: Draga Doamne, de ce nu ai salvat-o pe acea fetita ucisa in clasa? Iar Dumnezeu raspunde: Dragul meu, Eu am fost alungat din scoli, nu puteam fi acolo. Cum puteam Eu fi acolo, cind voi mi-ati spus sa plec din scoli?

E ciudat cum oamenii Il dispretuiesc pe Dumnezeu, si apoi se intreaba de ce totul merge tot mai prost.
E ciudat cum de credem tot ceea ce scriu ziarele, dar noi ne indoim de ceea ce spune Biblia.
E ciudat cum de toti oamenii vor sa mearga in ceruri, desi nu cred, gindesc, spun sau fac nimic din ceea ce scrie in Biblie.
E ciudat cum de unii pot spune Cred in Dumnezeu si de fapt sa-l urmeze pe Satan, care, de fapt, crede si el in Dumnezeu.
E ciudat cum ne repezim sa judecam, dar nu ne place sa fim judecati.
E ciudat cum de se pot trimite mii de glume prin e-mail si ele se raspindesc precum focul salbatic, dar cind incepi sa trimiti mesaje privindu-L pe Dumnezeu, oamenii se gindesc de doua ori inainte de a le trimite si altora.
E ciudat cum de tot ceea ce este vulgar, crud si obscen trece liber prin cyberspatiu, dar orice discutie publica despre Dumnezeu este impiedicata la scoala si la locul de munca.
E ciudat cum poate fi cineva atit de inflacarat de dragoste pentru Hristos fiind in acelasi timp un crestin invizibil in timpul saptaminii."

Rideti?

E ciudat cum de, gindindu-va daca sa trimiteti sau nu mai departe acest mesaj nu-l veti trimite multor adrese din lista voastra, pentru ca nu sunteti siguri de ceea ce crede destinatarul posibil sau de ceea ce vor crede despre VOI daca il veti trimite.
E ciudat cum de ma ingrijoreaza mai mult decit ceea ce cred oamenii despre mine si mai putin ceea ce crede Dumnezeu despre mine.

Ce credeti?
Trimiteti mesajul mai departe daca credeti ca este bun. Daca nu,
atunci pur si simplu aruncati-l la cos si nimeni nu va sti ca ati
facut-o. Dar, daca o faceti, atunci nu va mai plingeti de starea
proasta in care a ajuns lumea!

Lynn M. Karnes

Same-Sex Marriage Most Oppose It, But Balk at Amending Constitution

Analysis
By David Morris and Gary Langer

Jan. 21— Most Americans agree with President Bush's opposition to same-sex marriage — but most also oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban it, saying instead that it should be a matter for the individual states to decide.

Bush called in his State of the Union address Tuesday night for a "national dialogue" on the subject, but also signaled his own conclusion: "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

In this ABCNEWS/Washington Post survey, 38 percent of Americans favor amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to marry, but 58 percent say, instead, that each state should make its own laws on gay marriage.

More information ...

Liberals to introduce same-sex marriage bill in January

Last Updated Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:31:45 EST

CBC News

OTTAWA - The Liberal government will introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage when Parliament resumes sitting in January, Prime Minister Paul Martin said Thursday.

In an opinion released earlier in the day, nine Supreme Court judges asked to review draft legislation extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians said such a move would be constitutional.

• RELATED STORY: Supreme Court OK's same-sex marriage

That legal opinion clears the way for the Liberal government to introduce a bill early in the new year.

Liberal MPs will be free to vote their conscience on the bill, but cabinet ministers will be required to vote in favour of it, said Martin.

The prime minister urged members of all parties to carefully consider the issue before voting, saying the proposed legislation will ensure the "equal treatment of all Canadians."

He acknowledged the issue is divisive, but said Canadians can handle the debate.

"I think this will engender a debate across the country," said Martin. "We are a very mature nation and can undertake the debate."

Canada is the "world's most post-modern country" and can take the lead in this issue, he said.

Martin's Liberal minority government holds 134 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, but should have the support of most of the 19 New Democrat MPs and 54 Bloc Québécois MPs.

• RELATED STORY: Traditional groups call for marriage referendum

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says he expects a "significant majority" of members will support the bill because it backs two key points of the Charter, equality rights and freedom of religion.

As part of Thursday's decision, the court said religious groups opposed to same-sex marriages won't be compelled to perform them.

• The Supreme Court decision

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who called the court's opinion a "victory for Canadian democracy," says he's pleased the court "punted this issue back to Parliament."

Harper said the Supreme Court supports his party's policy because it also declined to express an opinion on whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

The Conservative leader says he'd like the government to introduce a compromise bill to Parliament that would preserve the traditional definition of marriage in law and include stronger protections of religious freedoms.

Same-sex marriage law passes 158-133

Last Updated Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:45:06 EDT

CBC News

The Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through in a 158-133 vote.

• INDEPTH: Same-sex Rights

Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex marriage.

But the passage of Bill C-38, once again, came with a political price tag for the government. Joe Comuzzi, resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the bill – an open rebuke of the government legislation.

What You Need To Know About Factory Farms

The Meatrix film highlighted four ways in which factory farms affect us – animal welfare, antibiotic resistant bacteria, pollution and destroyed communities. Factory Farms, dubbed Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) by the industry, are immense facilities with vast numbers of livestock such as pigs and cows, which are kept in extremely crowed conditions. The facilities store vast amounts of animal waste in stinking, foul “lagoons.” The stench and pollution of local waterways severely impact the quality of life for their neighbors. This style of farming is being exported to countries around the world at a rapid rate. Find out information on the wide range of factors that contribute to the devastating impacts of industrial agriculture.

A growing number of European citizens are deeply concerned about agriculture and the quality of food. Mad cow and foot and mouth diseases have raised consumer concerns about how far the industry will go to reduce food production costs. People are already aware of the environmental damages resulting from industrialised agriculture. The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is currently supporting this mode of industrial agriculture.

Animal Welfare

Animals on factory farms are looked at as units of production, not as living beings. They are often overcrowded indoors in unsanitary conditions. Ammonia and other gases from the manure that collects in the enclosed buildings where the animals live irritate animals' lungs, to the point where over 80% of US pigs have pneumonia upon slaughter.

Antibiotics

Because of the crowded and unsanitary conditions on factory farms, animals are often fed low doses of antibiotics. Antibiotics are also used to make the animals grow faster. This is contributing to the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans. Resistant bacteria infections increase healthcare costs by an estimated $4 billion per year in the United
States. In addition, every year approximately 25 million pounds of antibiotics and related drugs are administered to animals for non-therapeutic purposes (i.e. boosting growth rates and preventing disease). This is more than 8 times the amount used to treat disease in humans.

Buy Local

In the United States, the average meal travels over 1,500 miles to reach your dinner plate. By eating food produced locally, you are helping yourself, the environment and your community in many ways. 91 cents of each U.S. dollar spent at traditional food markets goes to suppliers, processors, middlemen, and marketers; only 9 cents of each U.S. dollar actually goes to the farmer.

Communities and Workers

Sustainable farms provide a welcome alternative to the problems associated with factory farming. Unlike corporate factory farm owners who have very little interest in the condition of local communities, sustainable farmers have a strong connection to their communities and a demonstrated commitment to preserving the surrounding land. In addition, workers on sustainable farms are treated fairly and earn a respectable wage. Did you know that the construction of a CAFO has been shown to consistently cause property values to decrease by 10 to 20 percent?

Economics

Supporters of industrial agriculture claim that large-scale factory farming is the most efficient way to produce huge quantities of inexpensive food and that without industrial agriculture, food prices would be excessively high. But the price of industrial food does not take into account the true costs of production. A substantial portion of agricultural economics literature suggests that smaller, family farm operations are actually more productive.

Environment

Agriculture has an enormous impact on the environment, but whether the impact is good or bad depends on the type of agriculture used. Sustainable agriculture puts back what it takes from the environment, while factory farming pollutes our air, water and soil. According to a study conducted by the Department of Economics at the University of Essex , industrial farms cause $34.7 billion worth of environmental damage in the U.S. each year.

Factory Farming

Corporate HogsMeat production in the United States has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. Small family farms are being replaced by huge livestock facilities, where animals suffer horribly, workers are mistreated, the environment is being destroyed, and where rural communities are dying. Find out what factory farms are. This style of farming is being exported to other countries at an alarming rate.

Food Irradiation

Large food corporations want to raise meat in countries with cheap labor and few environmental laws. In order to do that, they need irradiation. This increases the shelf life of the food so it can travel longer distances and stay on store shelves longer. Irradiation has not been properly tested for safety, depletes vitamin content, increases the amount of toxic waste in the world, and reportedly doesn't taste good.

Fossil Fuel and Energy Use

The U.S. burns an enormous amount of fossil fuel in order to maintain its incredible rate of energy consumption. This excessive rate of fossil fuel consumption causes significant damage to the environment. Did you know that 17% of all fossil fuel used in the U.S. is consumed by the food production system?

Genetic Engineering

Genetic Engineering (GE) is the process of transferring genes from one plant or animal to another. The technology has not been properly tested, so no one knows if GE food is safe to eat. 70% of processed foods in American supermarkets now contain genetically modified ingredients.9 Currently, crops are genetically engineered; animals are next. The U.S. is pushing Europe to accept this technology, even though the majority of Europeans oppose it.

Health

Most people agree that sustainable, pasture-raised and organic foods are healthier and taste better than industrial food – scientific research is even starting to prove the health benefits. Unsustainable agriculture and factory farms also affect our health by increasing the amount of food borne pathogens, contributing to antibiotic resistant bacteria, and through incubating infectious diseases that can be easily transmitted.

Hormones

Every year, approximately 36 million cattle are raised to provide beef for US consumers.10 Two-thirds of these cattle (about 24 million cows) are given hormones to help make them grow faster.11 Six hormones are implanted in beef cattle for no other reason than to make the cows grow faster so they can be sold sooner. The US government claims the hormones are safe, but the European Union has banned hormones in beef because their scientists have found a link between the hormones and cancer.

Loss of Family Farms

BarnFamily farmers are being forced out of business at an alarming rate. According to Farm Aid, 330 farmers leave their land every week. The dramatic expansion of industrial agriculture has made it increasingly difficult for small family farmers in the U.S. and due to the new European Common Agriculture Policy, a family farm disappears every three minutes in Europe.

Pesticides

According to the EPA, over 1 billion tons of pesticides are used in the U.S. every year.13 Pesticides are sprayed on produce sold to consumers, as well as on crops fed to farm animals. Residues are stored in the animals' fat and tissue, and enter our bodies when we eat the meat. Pesticides have been linked to many medical problems.
rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone)

rBGH, also known as BGH and BST, is a genetically engineered hormone injected into dairy cows for no other reason than to make them produce more milk. The hormone has not been properly tested for human safety and makes the animals more prone to illness and disease. In 2003, approximately 33% of the 9 million U.S. dairy cows were in herds treated with rBGH.14 So far, this hormone is banned in Europe.
Slaughterhouses and Processing

CAFOsThe meatpacking industry is dominated by a handful of corporations which handle massive quantities of meat at huge processing facilities. As a result of inadequate food safety standards and lax inspection practices, these corporations are able to operate unsanitary facilities which produce meat contaminated with the pathogens that cause foodborne illness.

More information

Japanese whaling

Since 1987, Japan has conducted an annual whale hunt in the Antarctic under the guise of "scientific" whaling. It has also embarked on a dodgy vote-buying inititative to shift the balance of power at the International Whaling Commission.

Japanese whaling

Eliminate the threat of genetic engineering

Over 70 per cent of products on supermarket shelves in Canada are made with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. These experimental ingredients could cause irreversible biological pollution and pose unknown risks to human health. Greenpeace is working to stop the release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment and support sustainable, organic agriculture ...
Download a paper copy

"Over 90% of all sewage in third world countries is discharged completely untreated; in Latin America the figure is 98%." Ecological Sanitation, p.2

Water Under Fire

Our quality of life is directly affected by the quality of our water. Often, Canadians take fresh water resources for granted. Scientists in the Canadian Water Network, Environment Canada and other research facilities throughout Canada have recognized that our water supply is stressed by over-allocation, contamination and environmental change. Water Under Fire visits many of these facilities and talks with the scientists who give us the current perspective on many of the challenges plaguing our nation's water.

Host Bob McDonald, with his unique presentation style, will interest viewers, while detailing important information that can apply to day-to-day living and longer term goals.

There are seven programs (28 minutes each) in the Water Under Fire series. Six of the programs focus on a specific region: The Rockies; The Prairies, The North, The Great Lakes Basin, The St. Lawrence and The Maritimes. As each region faces its particular challenges, different solutions are found and in fact may be utilized in other parts of the country. The seventh episode looks at water from a national and international perspective. Presented in this concluding program are political and economic considerations that could aggravate or simplify the solutions.

BAN TERMINATOR SEEDS – JOIN THE GLOBAL CAMPAIGN

Oct. 18, 2005

Please circulate widely and get involved. (posted October 2005)

Ban Terminator – (English, Español, en français)

Terminator Technology – “Suicide seeds” are back! Your action is needed.

Unfortunately Terminator is not yesterday’s news. Corporations and governments are again pushing hard to commercialize Terminator technology – plants that are genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest. The Canadian government tried to overturn the international (United Nations) de facto moratorium on Terminator in February 2005. To meet this new crisis and re-build global opposition, we ask you to join the new Ban Terminator Campaign and take action with us.

Mobilization is needed now to pressure governments to ban Terminator nationally and internationally. There are two important United Nations meetings coming up where debates on Terminator are planned. We will work to establish a ban on Terminator at the major meetings of the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity: January 23-27 in Spain and March 20-31 in Brazil.

Your action is needed NOW to make this happen.

We ask individuals, communities and groups across the world to take action locally, nationally, and internationally as part of the new global strategy.

Many of you are working to secure Farmers’ Rights, food sovereignty and the self-determination of your peoples and communities. You have successfully opposed Terminator in the past. Please add Terminator to your campaign work now - and please add your work and voices to the Ban
Terminator Campaign.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

- Groups and communities please “Endorse the Campaign” so we can show governments how strong the global opposition is http://www.banterminator.org/take_action/sign_on_to_ban_terminator
- Subscribe to receive Action Alerts and breaking news so that you can take immediate action when it is needed the most http://www.banterminator.org/take_action/subscribe
- Join with others in your area to pressure your government to ban Terminator nationally and at the United Nations. We can help provide materials and contacts.
- Organize events and actions - Become a Ban Terminator contact and
organizer.
- Share information on Terminator in your community so that we can work together
- Pass a resolution in your group or community against Terminator to communicate your protest and reasons clearly for all to see
- Visit http://www.banterminator.org for action ideas, information and campaign materials

Your input is important to us – join the strategy – participate in the campaign.

COMING SOON! to www.banterminator.org : “Select Your Country” Action and Frequently Asked Questions

HOW YOU CAN CONTACT US:

Visit http://www.banterminator.org contact@banterminator.org Full contact details are below.

CAMPAIGN DETAILS:

Purpose: The Ban Terminator Campaign seeks to promote government bans on Terminator technology at the national and international levels, and supports the efforts of civil society, farmers, Indigenous peoples and social movements to campaign against it.

Strategy: The international de facto moratorium on Terminator technology at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is under attack. Two upcoming meetings of the CBD where Terminator is on the agenda – the Working Group on Article 8 (j) in
Granada, Spain January 23-27 and the 8th Conference of the Parties
(COP8) to the CBD in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil March 20-31 2006 – offer important opportunities to strengthen the moratorium. The build-up to these meetings is also an important opportunity to encourage governments to establish national prohibitions on Terminator technology – just as Brazil and India have done. Corporations will not stop their efforts to commercialize Terminator until governments prohibit the technology.

Origins: The Ban Terminator Campaign was initiated in response to recent efforts by governments and corporations to push for Terminator field trials and commercialization. Despite widespread opposition, in February 2005, the Canadian government attempted to overturn the CBD’s international de facto moratorium on Terminator technology. The Ban Terminator Campaign was formed in response, following discussions initiated by Canadian-based civil society organizations (ETC group,
Inter Pares, National Farmers Union, and USC Canada).

History: In 1998, ETC group (then RAFI) discovered Terminator patents. In 1999, in response to the avalanche of public opposition, two of the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations, Monsanto and AstraZeneca (now Syngenta), publicly vowed not to commercialize Terminator seeds. In 2000, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a de facto moratorium on Terminator seeds. As a result, many people believed that the crisis had passed, and the issue faded from public view. Unfortunately, Terminator is still being developed and is now being heavily promoted.

Structure:

The Ban Terminator Campaign’s steering committee:

AS-PTA - Assessoria e Serviços a Projectos em Agricultura Alternativa
www.aspta.org.br ETC Group - Action group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration www.etcgroup.org GRAIN www.grain.org Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism www.ipcb.org ITDG - Intermediate Technology Development Group www.itdg.org Pesticide Action Network – Asia and the Pacific www.panap.net Third World Network www.twnside.org.sg www.biosafety-info.net Via Campesina www.viacampesina.org

Contact Us:

Ban Terminator Campaign
contact@banterminator.org
www.banterminator.org
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor Ottawa, Ontario Canada K2P 0R5 Phone: 1 613 241 2267 Fax: 1 613 241 2506

Nici n-au nevoie de bomba nucleara...

Prinsi de teama gripei aviare (intelegand astfel pe deplin ingrijorarea din glasul presedintelui Bush atunci cand s-a adresat omenirii de la tribuna Natiunilor Unite si a avertizat asupra pericolului unei pandemii), prinsi de teama cutremurelor care loveau pe rand Noua Zeelanda, Pakistanul, Turcia, Peru si care parca se apropiau, prin Grecia si Bulgaria, tot mai amenintator de noi, prinsi de multe alte temeri regizate intr-o masura mai mica sau mai mare de cine trebuie, era cat pe ce sa pierdem din vedere turneele-maraton a doua doamne importante de la Departamentul de Stat.

Karen Huges, subsecretar de stat, responsabila cu imbunatatirea imaginii SUA in strainatate, declara, dupa cinci zile de escale prin Cairo, Riyadh si Ankara, ca intelege mai bine acum sentimentul antiamerican din tarile arabo-musulmane.

Pe de alta parte, secretarul de stat Condoleezza Rice a vizitat timp de sapte zile nordul a ceea ce trebuie sa devina Marele Orient democrat, „atacand“ succesiv Kirghizstanul, Afganistanul, Pakistanul, Kazahstanul, Tadjikistanul, pentru ca, dupa o scurta escala - probabil pentru alimentarea aeronavei - la Paris, sa se intoarca la Moscova iar, in drumul spre casa, sa treaca si pe la Londra pentru un „dejun privat“ cu Tony Blair.

Daca prima dintre doamne s-a putut bucura de un mic succes, intelegand mai bine ceea ce stia deja, cea de-a doua, doamna Rice, nu a reusit sa ralieze Moscova la pozitia Casei Albe in privinta dosarului nuclear iranian. Drept urmare, a doua zi de la sosirea sa la Washington, Donald Rumsfeld ia si el calea aerului, hotarand sa faca prima sa vizita in China de cand este ministru al apararii, adica din 2001 incoace. In ciuda declaratiilor oficiale oferite ziaristilor ce l-au insotit - administratia americana vrea sa salute, o data oficialul american ajuns la Beijing, afirmarea Chinei ca putere economica -, pe agenda deplasarii a figurat cu siguranta la loc de cinste acelasi controversat dosar nuclear iranian. In fapt, Casa Alba doreste ca Rusia si China sa nu faca uz de dreptul de veto in dosarul pe care SUA il vor inainta Consiliului de Securitate al ONU, pentru a acuza Iranul si pentru a putea trece astfel la faza a doua a sanctiunilor - probabil militare. Realitatea irakiana face ca, cel putin pentru moment, administratia americana sa nu-si mai poata permite sa eludeze din nou Consiliul de Securitate. Mai ales ca, la presedintia acestuia, s-a aflat tocmai Romania!

Si daca, in timp ce Donald Rumsfeld era la Beijing, presedintele nostru, Traian Basescu, decide sa ia si el calea aerului, plecand spre unul dintre vecinii Chinei, Coreea de Sud, nu ar fi exclus ca administratia romana sa dea astfel un semn de revenire, o data cu criza iraniana, la vocatia pe care si-a mai manifestat-o pe vremea lui Nicolae Ceausescu, si anume aceea de mediator, dar si de actor in rezolvarea diferendelor de pe scena internationala. Dovada stau soldatii romani prezenti in Irak si Afganistan.

Incurajat si de declaratia ministrului rus de externe, Serghei Lavrov, potrivit caruia Teheranul are dreptul sa procedeze la imbogatirea uraniului, Iranul si-a reinnoit refuzul de a suspenda activitatile la centrala nucleara de la Ispahan, in vreme ce aeronavele oficiale brazdau in zig-zag diplomatic cerul lumii.

Leagan al civilizatiei universale, cu o istorie multimilenara, Iranul este un paradox geopolitic si o enigma politica. Situat la intersectia lumilor araba, turca, indiana si rusa, teritoriul iranian - zona de contacte si de comunicatii - a ramas un „spatiu al singularitatii“, o societate umana insulara ce se distinge profund de vecinii sai. Pamant al islamului, Iranul este unicul stat siit din lumea musulmana. Mare producator de petrol, e singura tara ce are acces la doua resurse energetice deodata - la cele din Golfului Persic si din bazinul petrolier al Marii Caspice. Este prima natiune din Orientul Mijlociu ce a facut doua revolutii la inceput de secol XX, dintre care una islamica.

Daca, la inceputul anilor ‘80, Iranul era o teocratie in mainile unui cler avid de putere, acum „la guvernare“ se afla principiul apararii identitatii nationale. Teheranul contemporan noua inregistreaza o crestere economica stabila, in jur de 6% pe an, s-a conectat la internet, a permis tinerilor sa studieze in Occident si, conform unor marturii, tolereaza chiar o atitudine proamericana in randurile unei fractiuni din populatia sa. Cu certitudine poporul nu e in fapt atat de antiamerican cum il prezinta mass-media internationale, ci isi construieste o democratie conforma culturii si civilizatiei sale, dar si cerintelor lumii globaliste a secolului 21.

La alegerile din vara acestui an s-au prezentat in fata votantilor mai multi candidati, s-au facut vizibile partide politice cu o prezenta mai galagioasa sau mai discreta in societate, cu orientari si de dreapta, si de stanga. Candidatii la functia suprema in stat au avut nevoie de prezenta la urne a iranienilor pentru a fi alesi.

Ca si in democratiile occidentale, si in Iran se impun restrictii candidatilor pentru a participa la viata publica. Consiliul Gardienilor Revolutiei este astfel omologul institutional al oricarei curti constitutionale europene: el garanteaza ca dezbaterile politice au loc sub controlul statului. Principiile democratiilor liberale din Occident rimeaza pe pamant iranian cu fundamentele Republicii Islamice.

Daca popoare cu contributii majore la civilizatia umana precum israelienii, rusii, francezii - nemaivorbind de americani - sunt detinatoare ale armei nucleare, de ce n-ar avea dreptul si iranienii sa o aiba? Intrebarea e alta: de ce vor sa o produca acum? O posibila explicatie ar putea fi „singularitatea“ acestui popor si de aici nevoia de a se asigura in fata riscurilor in cazul unei agresiuni armate din exterior. Iranienii nu pot da uitarii traumatismele lasate de cei opt ani de razboi cu Irakul lui Saddam Hussein si nici victimele provocate de gazele toxice utilizate in lupta, cu complicitatea Occidentului.

Democratia liberala pe cale a fi implementata astazi in Afganistan si Irak se dovedeste a nu fi idealul de urmat, idealul potrivit lumii musulmane, iar existenta insasi a unei tari precum Iranul - putere de necontestat - reprezinta o amenintare permanenta la adresa succesului scontat al acesteia.

Paradoxal, din asa-zisul conflict diplomatic planetar generat de dosarul nuclear iranian, Teheranul nu are decat de castigat. Astazi iranienii au o voce ascultata cu seriozitate si teama. De aceea nici nu mai au nevoie de bomba nucleara pentru a-si consolida pozitia de putere regionala!
Marian Oprea, Lumea Magazin