Thursday, October 31, 2013

Go Boris!

Boris Johnson defends Guardian over NSA revelations

Mayor of London says it is right that 'salient and interesting facts' about espionage are brought into public domain
 
 
Boris Johnson has issued a staunch defence of the Guardian's "salient and interesting" revelations showing the extent of mass surveillance by US and UK intelligence agencies.

The mayor of London told an audience at the World Islamic Economic Forum on Wednesday that it was important that governments and their spies were held to account by a "beady-eyed" media.
"I think the public deserves to know," said Johnson. "The world is better for government being kept under the beady-eyed scrutiny of the media and for salient and interesting facts about public espionage being brought into the public domain."

Johnson's intervention puts him at odds with David Cameron, who has said the leaks based on files from the whistleblower Edward Snowden have made the UK less safe. This week the prime minister issued a veiled threat to take "tougher measures" against the Guardian and other newspapers unless they showed a more socially responsible attitude.

"I don't want to have to use injunctions or D notices or the other tougher measures," Cameron said. "I think it's much better to appeal to newspapers' sense of social responsibility. But if they don't demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act."

Johnson highlighted the news that the German chancellor Angela Merkel's phone had been bugged by the US National Security Agency for a decade, a story originally reported in the German news weekly Der Spiegel.

"I personally defend the Guardian's right to publish interesting information such as that Angela Merkel's phone was bugged by Barack Obama. I think that is an interesting fact," he said. "I don't believe that the fact that Angela Merkel's phone was bugged by the NSA does anything to jeopardise anybody's security, it's merely colossally embarrassing and it should come out."

On Thursday the House of Commons will debate the oversight of the UK's intelligence agencies. The Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert, who is leading the debate along with Labour's Tom Watson and the Tory Dominic Raab, said the scale of the US and UK surveillance operation should act as a wake-up call to MPs.

"There is no doubt in my mind that we benefit from the intelligence and security agencies," Huppert wrote in an article for the Guardian. "Their work does help keep us safe. However, we must ensure that as parliamentarians and lawmakers we give them a clear framework to operate in and proper oversight, scrutiny and evaluation to keep them on track. They should welcome this as well."
Huppert said that under the current legal framework spies had an "almost completely free rein", and questioned whether the intelligence and security committee, which is supposed to scrutinise the agencies, was fit for purpose. "[It consists] of a small number of parliamentarians, handpicked by the prime minister, and includes ex-ministers who effectively scrutinise the decisions they themselves made. It is not clear to me they all understand the technical capabilities they are supposed to comment on."

Raab added his voice to the growing debate on Wednesday, saying he had seen no evidence that the Snowden revelations had damaged national security.

"Newspapers and politicians and members of the public have to make sure we don't impair this country's national security. But I have to say I haven't seen or heard or read anything which isn't really about political embarrassment for either the agencies or the government," Raab said. "I think we have to be very careful we don't let national security be a fig leaf to shout down proper debate about the oversight and accountability of the security services."
 

Monday, October 28, 2013

Just to disclaim

Now, should anyone by error, chance, or whatever, happen to come by this blog - which I absolutely do not expect - as a matter of fact I sort of talk to myself on these pages - I just want to make absolutely sure that the basic disclaimer to be found at the bottom of my index-webpage, also goes for these blogs or anything that you might find, dear non-existent reader, on any of those pages associated with my webpage or blogs or however you might have ended up here: Not Washington State University, nor the WSU Honors College, or any person associated with said institutions carry any sort of responsibility - nor do the United States of America, the Kingdom of Denmark, nor the EU - for the utterings on these blog-etc.-pages, the opinions and juxtapositions expressed there all being solely mine, simply for the sake of having and expressing opinions, no matter how potentially erroneous or ill-conceived they might turn out to be.

Thank you! Now please read on...

KA

Not just broadband

'Why?' is a very good question. When I came here many years ago things were plentiful, inexpensive (compared to Europe), of quality, and you could even eat the meat. Now, of course, eating any kind of meat by and large equals a sex change operation. Either way.

The charts below are stunning - if your mind can even fathom moving beyond the mindless dictum: 'America is the greatest country in the world.' Not that I am unhappy at all; nope, the chant is just stupefyingly mindless. Does look like rip-rip-rip off-off-off is the name of the game.


"Americans pay so much because they don't have a choice," she says below. Is that the story of the past decades: that the corporization of America limits choice. Cereal boxes might be different (not really) but it's the same crap inside. Can you get a decent salami in Eastern Washington? Pullman doesn't have one bakery, that is, a thing actually baking bread, real bread, not merely stacking industrialized, soft cardboard. Then, of course, there's politics... those two, is that really a choice?

But I am not unhappy at all; nope, it is just so stupefyingly stupid; when you know what we can have, so easily, so goodly.


Why is broadband more expensive in the US?


Woman with laptop on sofa

 

Home broadband in the US costs far more than elsewhere. At high speeds, it costs nearly three times as much as in the UK and France, and more than five times as much as in South Korea. Why?
Men's haircuts, loaves of bread... it is surprising how much more expensive some things are in the US than the UK. Now home broadband can be added to that list.

The price of basic broadband, TV and phone packages - or bundles as they are known - is much higher in American cities than elsewhere, suggests the New America Foundation think tank, which compared hundreds of available packages worldwide.

Looking at some of the cheaper ones available in certain cities, at lower to mid download speeds, San Francisco ($99/£61), New York ($70) and Washington DC ($68) dwarf London ($38), Paris ($35) and Seoul ($15).

Cost of broadband around the world

This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom.

For instance, at high speeds of 45 Mbps and over, the OECD report has the US ranked 30th out of 33 countries, with an average price of $90 a month. With phone and TV thrown in, plus some premium channels, these packages often cost $200.

Countries with high-speed broadband
 


"Americans pay so much because they don't have a choice," says Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy.

Although there are several national companies, local markets tend to be dominated by just one or two main providers.

"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight."

Two-thirds get their broadband via their television cables, she says, because the DSL (digital subscriber line) service provided by phone companies over copper lines can't compete with cable speeds, while wireless and satellite services are subject to low usage caps.

Twitter logo made from California numberplates
 
San Francisco seems to be particularly expensive.

Mitch Evans pays $200 a month for internet, TV and unlimited voice phone calls. "I guess I've just become used to it after 23 years here in the Bay Area. I know the cost of living here is very high, but for me it's a small price to pay for such a beautiful and wonderful place to call home."

Buck Wallander, a recent arrival in the city, pays $120 a month for a television and broadband package provided by Xfinity/Comcast, plus $7 a month to "rent" the modem.
 
He says he had little choice in selecting a provider because the only other cable television company was directv, which didn't offer any internet service. His internet speed is "entry-level" with a cap on usage. He says he's pretty satisfied with the service but resents leasing the modem.

"That's like a rental car company charging customers an extra $7 fee per month to include the steering wheel."

Elsewhere in the US, there is a patchwork of other options.

In Kansas City, Kansas, residents are enjoying a high-speed fibre network, supplied by Google, at a price of $70 a month for a gigabit (1,000 Mbps) internet-only service. And there's a slower 5 Mbps download speed for free for seven years to those who pay $300 up front. Google now has Austin, Texas, and Provo, Utah, in its sights, too. Verizon also has a super fast fibre network, Fios, available to 10% of US households.

About 150 cities across the US have internet access supplied by public utility companies. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, electricity company EPB became an internet service provider four years ago. After expanding its existing fibre network which it used to control the grid, it now offers a one gigabit service for $70 a month.
 

Friday, October 25, 2013

Get it - !?

"Let me see... How do I understands this...? Could you describe it again....? Ehhh, slowly, this time... What's wrong with that...!?" - What does it take? How many... people... to screw in a light bulb? To rationalize abuse?

=======================

Please tell me, Mr President, why a US drone assassinated my mother

Momina Bibi was a 67-year-old grandmother and midwife from Waziristan. Yet President Obama tells us drones target terrorists
theguardian.com,
Pakistani ribesmen from Waziristan protest against US drone attacks, outside parliament in Islamabad
 
Tribesmen from Waziristan protest against US drone attacks, outside Pakistan's parliament in Islamabad, in 2010. Photograph: T Mughal/EPA
 
The last time I saw my mother, Momina Bibi, was the evening before Eid al-Adha. She was preparing my children's clothing and showing them how to make sewaiyaan, a traditional sweet made of milk. She always used to say: the joy of Eid is the excitement it brings to the children.

Last year, she never had that experience. The next day, 24 October 2012, she was dead, killed by a US drone that rained fire down upon her as she tended her garden.

Nobody has ever told me why my mother was targeted that day. The media reported that the attack was on a car, but there is no road alongside my mother's house. Several reported the attack was on a house. But the missiles hit a nearby field, not a house. All reported that five militants were killed. Only one person was killed – a 67-year-old grandmother of nine.

My three children – 13-year-old Zubair, nine-year-old Nabila and five-year-old Asma – were playing nearby when their grandmother was killed. All of them were injured and rushed to hospitals. Were these children the "militants" the news reports spoke of? Or perhaps, it was my brother's children? They, too, were there. They are aged three, seven, 12, 14, 15 and 17 years old. The eldest four had just returned from a day at school, not long before the missile struck.

But the United States and its citizens probably do not know this. No one ever asked us who was killed or injured that day. Not the United States or my own government. Nobody has come to investigate nor has anyone been held accountable. Quite simply, nobody seems to care.
I care, though. And so does my family and my community. We want to understand why a 67-year-old grandmother posed a threat to one of the most powerful countries in the world. We want to understand how nine children, some playing in the field, some just returned from school, could possibly have threatened the safety of those living a continent and an ocean away.

Most importantly, we want to understand why President Obama, when asked whom drones are killing, says they are killing terrorists. My mother was not a terrorist. My children are not terrorists. Nobody in our family is a terrorist.

My mother was a midwife, the only midwife in our village. She delivered hundreds of babies in our community. Now families have no one to help them.

And my father? He is a retired school principal. He spent his life educating children, something that my community needs far more than bombs. Bombs create only hatred in the hearts of people. And that hatred and anger breeds more terrorism. But education – education can help a country prosper.
I, too, am a teacher. I was teaching in my local primary school on the day my mother was killed. I came home to find not the joys of Eid, but my children in the hospital and a coffin containing only pieces of my mother.

Our family has not been the same since that drone strike. Our home has turned into hell. The small children scream in the night and cannot sleep. They cry until dawn.

Several of the children have had to have multiple surgeries. This has cost money we no longer have, since the missiles also killed our livestock. We have been forced to borrow from friends; money we cannot repay. We then use the money to pay a doctor, a doctor who removes from the children's bodies the metal gifts the US gave them that day.
 
Drone strikes are not like other battles where innocent people are accidentally killed. Drone strikes target people before they kill them. The United States decides to kill someone, a person they only know from a video. A person who is not given a chance to say – I am not a terrorist. The US chose to kill my mother.

Several US congressmen invited me to come to Washington, DC to share my story with members of Congress. I hope by telling my story, America may finally begin to understand the true impact of its drone program and who is on the other end of drone strikes.
I want Americans to know about my mother. And I hope, maybe, I might get an answer to just one question: why?

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Marinaleda

Marinaleda: Spain's communist model village

http://gu.com/p/3jtzn


Here's the entire article well worth reading as a corrective to complacent, visious capitalism. There are definitely elements in village life I would discourage, such as loud speakers telling me when to be where; or even having to be anywhere because somebody says so; or (too much) manual labor for that matter; I am not a communist but I can see how these people got there, to the extent they consider themselves communists; let's not take the author's word for it. No, the interesting parts are these: a corrective to corporate capitalism, another way of doing things, let's discuss the details. Simply: haven't we had enough of factory-produced garbage food, the top-down ceo-world sustained by secrecy-spying right and left.

I do want to point out that  Juan the mayor is quite the conscious media-man himself: on all pictures of him I have seen, he's wearing an Arab-scarf, various colors, but indeed a gimmick de-locating him to the political scrap-heap of  long-gone gimmicks. Wish he wouldn't tred that path that leads to statues and giant portraits in public squares.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/marinaleda-spanish-communist-village-utopia 

Spain's communist model village

The Observer,
 
Marinaleda, in impoverished Andalusia, used to suffer terrible hardships. Led by a charismatic mayor, the village declared itself a communist utopia and took farmland to provide for everyone. Could it be the answer to modern capitalism's failings?
Workers in the Olive groves of El Humoso, Marinaleda
 
Workers in the Olive groves of El Humoso, Marinaleda. Photograph: Dave Stelfox

In 2004, I was leafing through a travel guide to Andalusia while on holiday in Seville, and read a fleeting reference to a small, remote village called Marinaleda – "a communist utopia" of revolutionary farm labourers, it said. I was immediately fascinated, but I could find almost no details to feed my fascination. There was so little information about the village available beyond that short summary, either in the guidebook, on the internet, or on the lips of strangers I met in Seville. "Ah yes, the strange little communist village, the utopia," a few of them said. But none of them had visited, or knew anyone who had – and no one could tell me whether it really was a utopia. The best anyone could do was to add the information that it had a charismatic, eccentric mayor, with a prophet's beard.

Eventually I found out more. The first part of Marinaleda's miracle is that when its struggle to create utopia began, in the late 1970s, it was from a position of abject poverty. The village was suffering more than 60% unemployment; it was a farming community with no land, its people frequently forced to go without food for days at a time, in a period of Spanish history mired in uncertainty after the death of the fascist dictator General Franco. The second part of Marinaleda's miracle is that over three extraordinary decades, it won. Some distance along that remarkable journey of struggle and sacrifice, in 1985, Sánchez Gordillo told the newspaper El País: "We have learned that it is not enough to define utopia, nor is it enough to fight against the reactionary forces. One must build it here and now, brick by brick, patiently but steadily, until we can make the old dreams a reality: that there will be bread for all, freedom among citizens, and culture; and to be able to read with respect the word 'peace '. We sincerely believe that there is no future that is not built in the present."
As befits a rebel, Sánchez Gordillo is fond of quoting Che Guevara; specifically Che's maxim that "only those who dream will someday see their dreams converted to reality". In one small village in southern Spain, this isn't just a T-shirt slogan.

In spring 2013 unemployment in Andalusia is a staggering 36%; for those aged 16 to 24, the figure is above 55% – figures worse even than the egregious national average. The construction industry boom of the 2000s saw the coast cluttered with cranes and encouraged a generation to skip the end of school and take the €40,000-a-year jobs on offer on the building sites. That work is gone, and nothing is going to replace it. With the European Central Bank looming ominously over his shoulder, prime minister Mariano Rajoy has introduced labour reforms to make it much easier for businesses to sack their employees, quickly and with less compensation, and these new laws are now cutting swaths through the Spanish workforce, in private and public sectors alike.

Spain experienced a massive housing boom from 1996 to 2008. The price of property per square metre tripled in those 12 years: its scale is now tragically reflected in its crisis. Nationally, up to 400,000 families have been evicted since 2008. Again, it is especially acute in the south: 40 families a day in Andalusia have been turfed out of their homes by the banks. To make matters worse, under Spanish housing law, when you're evicted by your mortgage lender, that isn't the end of it: you have to keep paying the mortgage. In final acts of helplessness, suicides by homeowners on the brink of foreclosure have become horrifyingly common – on more than one occasion, while the bailiffs have been coming up the stairs, evictees have hurled themselves out of upstairs windows.

When people refer to la crisis in Spain they mean the eurozone crisis, an economic crisis; but the term means more than that. It is a systemic crisis, a political ecology crack'd from side to side: a crisis of seemingly endemic corruption across the country's elites, including politicians, bankers, royals and bureaucrats, and a crisis of faith in the democratic settlement established after the death of Franco in 1975. A poll conducted by the (state-run) centre for sociological research in December 2012 found that 67.5% of Spaniards said they were unhappy with the way their democracy worked. It's this disdain for the Spanish state in general, rather than merely the effects of the economic crisis, that brought 8 million indignados on to the streets in the spring and summer of 2011, and informed their rallying cry "Democracia Real Ya" (real democracy now).


Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo, mayor of Marinaleda, attending a protest in Seville. Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo, mayor of Marinaleda, attending a protest in Seville. Photograph: Dave Stelfox
But in one village in Andalusia's wild heart, there lies stability and order. Like Asterix's village impossibly holding out against the Romans, in this tiny pueblo a great empire has met its match, in a ragtag army of boisterous upstarts yearning for liberty. The bout seems almost laughably unfair – Marinaleda's population is 2,700, Spain's is 47 million – and yet the empire has lost, time and time again.

In 1979, at the age of 30, Sánchez Gordillo became the first elected mayor of Marinaleda, a position he has held ever since – re-elected time after time with an overwhelming majority. However, holding official state-sanctioned positions of power was only a distraction from the serious business of la lucha – the struggle. In the intense heat of the summer of 1980, the village launched "a hunger strike against hunger" which brought them national and even global recognition. Everything they have done since that summer has increased the notoriety of Sánchez Gordillo and his village, and added to their admirers and enemies across Spain.

Sánchez Gordillo's philosophy, outlined in his 1980 book Andaluces, Levantaos and in countless speeches and interviews since, is one which is unique to him, though grounded firmly in the historic struggles and uprisings of the peasant pueblos of Andalusia, and their remarkably deep-seated tendency towards anarchism. These communities are striking for being against all authority. "I have never belonged to the communist party of the hammer and sickle, but I am a communist or communitarian," Sánchez Gordillo said in an interview in 2011, adding that his political beliefs were drawn from those of Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Marx, Lenin and Che.

In August 2012 he achieved a new level of notoriety for a string of actions that began, in 40C heat, with the occupation of military land, the seizure of an aristocrat's palace, and a three-week march across the south in which he called on his fellow mayors not to repay their debts. Its peak saw Sánchez Gordillo lead a series of expropriations from supermarkets, along with fellow members of the left-communist trade union SOC-SAT. They marched into supermarkets and took bread, rice, olive oil and other basic supplies, and donated them to food banks for Andalusians who could not feed themselves. For this he became a superstar, appearing not only on the cover of Spanish newspapers, but in the world's media, as "the Robin Hood mayor", "the Don Quixote of the Spanish crisis", or "Spain's William Wallace", depending on which newspaper you read.
 

A socialist mural in Marinaleda. A socialist mural in Marinaleda. Photograph: Dave Stelfox
In the darkness of a winter morning, between 6 and 7am, Marinaleda's workers are clustered around the counter of the orange-painted patisserie Horno el Cedazo. Here they stand, knocking back strong, dark coffee accompanied by orange juice, pastries and pan con tomate: truly one of the world's best breakfasts, a large hunk of toast served alongside a bottle of olive oil and a decanter of sweet, salty, pink tomato pulp. Pour on one, then the other, then a sprinkling of salt and pepper, and you are ready for a day in the fields. Those with stronger stomachs also knock back a shot of one of the lurid-coloured liqueurs arrayed on a high shelf behind the counter; the syrupy, pungent anís is the most popular of these coffee chasers. All work in the Marinaleda co-operative in shifts, depending on what needs harvesting, and how much of it there is. If there's enough work for your group, then you will be told in advance, through the loudspeaker on the van that circles the village in the evenings. It's a strange, quasi-Soviet experience, sitting at home and hearing the van drive past announcing: "Work in the fields tomorrow for group B". The static-muffled announcements get louder and then quieter as the van winds through the village's narrow streets, like someone lost in a maze carrying a transistor radio.

When the 1,200-hectare El Humoso farm was finally won in 1991 – awarded to the village by the regional government following a decade of relentless occupations, strikes and appeals – cultivation began. The new Marinaleda co-operative selected crops that would need the greatest amount of human labour, to create as much work as possible. In addition to the ubiquitous olives and the oil-processing factory, they planted peppers of various kinds, artichokes, fava beans, green beans, broccoli: crops that could be processed, canned, and jarred, to justify the creation of a processing factory that provided a secondary industry back in the village, and thus more employment. "Our aim was not to create profit, but jobs," Sánchez Gordillo explained to me. This philosophy runs directly counter to the late-capitalist emphasis on "efficiency" – a word that has been elevated to almost holy status in the neoliberal lexicon, but in reality has become a shameful euphemism for the sacrifice of human dignity at the altar of share prices.

Sánchez Gordillo once suggested to me that the aristocratic family of the House of Alba could invest its vast riches (from shares in banks and power companies to multimillion-euro agricultural subsidies for its vast tracts of land) to create jobs, but had never shown any interest in doing so. "We believe the land should belong to the community that works it, and not in the dead hands of the nobility." That's why the big landowners planted wheat, he explained – wheat could be harvested with a machine, overseen by a few labourers; in Marinaleda, crops like artichokes and tomatoes were chosen precisely because they needed lots of labour. Why, the logic runs, should "efficiency" be the most important value in society, to the detriment of human life?

The town co-operative does not distribute profits: any surplus is reinvested to create more jobs. Everyone in the co-op earns the same salary, €47 (£40) a day for six and a half hours of work: it may not sound like a lot, but it's more than double the Spanish minimum wage. Participation in decisions about what crops to farm, and when, is encouraged, and often forms the focus of the village's general assemblies – in this respect, being a cooperativista means being an important part of the functioning of the pueblo as a whole. Where once the day labourers of Andalusia were politically and socially marginalised by their lack of an economic stake in their pueblo, they are now – at least in Marinaleda – called upon to lead the way. Non-co-operativists are by no means excluded from involvement in the town's political, social and cultural life – it's more that if you are a part of the co-operative, you can't avoid being swept up in local activities outside the confines of the working day.

Private enterprise is permitted in the village – perhaps more importantly, it is still an accepted part of life. As with the seven privately owned bars and cafés in the village (the Sindicato bar is owned by the union), if you wanted to open a pizzeria or a little family business of any kind, no one would stand in your way. But if a hypothetical head of regional development and franchising for, say, Carrefour, or Starbucks, with a vicious sense of humour and a masochistic streak, decided this small village was the perfect spot to expand operations, well – they wouldn't get very far. "We just wouldn't allow it," Sánchez Gordillo told me bluntly.

Marinaleda's alternative is decades in the making, but other anti-capitalist alternatives are sprouting in the cracks of the Spanish crisis, in the form of numerous quotidian acts of resistance, not just strikes and protests, but everyday behaviour – the occupation of vacant new-builds by those made homeless by their banks, firemen refusing to evict penniless families, doctors refusing to turn away undocumented immigrants. There is also a new Marinaleda-style farming co-operative in Somonte, a collective farm established on occupied government land in 2012, only an hour or so's drive from the village. When I visited Somonte earlier this year, I met Marinaleños who had left their home to bring Sanchez Gordillo's message of "land belongs to those who work it" to new terrain.

When I visited in February this year, a young man called Román strode bare-chested through the endless fields to greet us, looking strong but tired – they work from dawn until dusk, stopping only to dip into much-needed cauldrons full of pasta, rice and bean stews; surplus vegetables are sold on market day in nearby towns. They were growing beans, pimentos, potatoes and cabbages when I visited, planting trees and trying to resuscitate 400 hectares of idle land – as best they could, with only two dozen pairs of hands. Paradoxically, in light of Spain's staggering unemployment figures, they still need more people to join their co-operative, and have more farmland than they can currently cultivate. One of the murals painted on the Somonte barn wall contained a telling slogan, alongside portraits of Malcolm X, Geronimo and Zapata: "Andalusians, don't emigrate, fight! The land is yours: recover it!" It's a message cried somewhat into the void, as thousands of young Spaniards scurry down the brain drain to Britain, Germany, France and beyond.

But Somonte is not without support. Hundreds of people have visited at weekends or for short stays, from Madrid, Seville and many from overseas, bringing their labour and other resources, to help with the land, to build infrastructure or paint murals, donating secondhand farming equipment, furniture and kitchenware. As we strolled past a small collection of chickens and goats, Florence, a French woman who had been living in Marinaleda before joining the "new struggle" in Somonte, explained that the land was some of the most fertile in Spain, but had for decades been used by the government to grow corn, to bring in European subsidies – it created next to no work, and no produce; the corn was left to rot. Those 400 wasted hectares were about to be auctioned off privately by the government when the Andalusian Workers' Union turned up in March 2012; they occupied it, were evicted by 200 riot police, and in true Marinaleda style, returned the next day to start again. The auction never took place. Somonte is now 18 months old, growing slowly but steadily, and is the kind of Marinaleda domino effect that the crisis may yet bring more of.

No one ever forgets "that strange and moving experience" of believing in a revolution, as George Orwell reflected after arriving in Barcelona on the brink of civil war to a society fizzing with energy as it fleetingly experienced living communism. Marinaleda is neither fully communist nor fully a utopia: but take a step outside the pueblo and into contemporary Spain, and you will see a society pummelled, impoverished and atomised, pulled into death and destruction by an economic system and a political class who seem not to care whether the poor live or die. Sánchez Gordillo's achievements are more than just the concrete gains of land, housing, sustenance and culture, phenomenal though they are: being there is a strange and moving experience, and, as Orwell suggested, an unforgettable one.

In the eight or so years I have known about Marinaleda, I have sometimes had to remind myself of the gap between the grandiose claims made about the village, by left and right alike, and the humble size and intimacy of the place itself. It is a village which means so much to so many people, across the world; but it has only 2,700 inhabitants, and whole hours can pass in which the only noise emanates from a motorcycle speeding down Avenida de la Libertad, or the vocal exercises of a particularly enervated rooster.
 
It is both poignant and appropriate that Sánchez Gordillo seems to see no bathos, or discrepancy, in devoting as much attention and passion to the local specifics of the pueblo – the need to start planting artichokes this month, not pimentos – as he does to the big picture, persuading the world that only an end to capitalism will restore dignity to the lives of billions.

The indignado movement had informed not just Spain, but the world, that millions of Spaniards were unwilling to brook the crisis. They were desperately looking for an alternative to the current system – and yet, in their midst, there was already one in operation. Faced with the massed ranks protesting in Puerta del Sol in Madrid, in Wall Street in New York, and outside St Paul's Cathedral in London, the damning questions rang out from conservatives and liberals: "What's your alternative? What's your programme? How would it work in practice?"

They may have ignored the village before, or dismissed it with a chuckle as a rural curiosity run by a bearded eccentric; but they can do so no longer. "What's your alternative?' bark the dogs of capitalist realism. Increasingly, the indignados are able to respond: 'Well, how about Marinaleda?'"

=============================

About time

US drone strikes could be classed as war crimes, says Amnesty International

http://gu.com/p/3jm4g

Interesting perspectives on opium

Plenty of contemporary evidence should make us wonder about the nature of the parent-child/ren relationship of our times. I certainly think I have a less artificial, more straight-forward and rational relationship to my puppy than what I see in most parents scrambling around, excusing themselves to their children. Take the local commuter train from Copenhagen Main Train Station to Tisvildeleje and you'll witness one little fascist after the other chastizing freaked-out parents. Or the worst ones: a pedagogy-parent softly respecting every utterence of the little freak as he/she raionally tries to guide the absolutely self-conscious monster to some worthy perspective. Interesting socio-cultural dimensions suggested on these links. Where historically children were little more than an inconvenient free work force, methodically abused, then, migrating towards children being a sort of middle-of-the-road sub-part of realizing the facade-parameters of successful petit-burgeois existence, rather unconsciously and preferably in the suburbs, we now seem to have ended up in the opposite ditch: parents completely morphing their selves and lives into around the clock subservience. Spurred on, perhaps, by collective guilt over what is perceived as the indifference of the past (i.e., 'we know so much more now of child development and have the books and dr. phils to guide us') , and hence, not least, by the massive terapeutical industry which, sadly, does not alleviate higher education from responsibility.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10395006/Children-are-the-opium-of-the-masses-says-Rory-Stewart.html

The worship of children brings only misery | Suzanne Moore

http://gu.com/p/3jz2y


bossy child