La Carta impossibile dei diritti universali
La Carta impossibile dei diritti universali
Cassese - Corriere doc
Cassese - Corriere doc
posted by stebaldos at 6:09 PM
0 comments
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Release of the Global Outsourcing Report
Release of the Global Outsourcing Report
horasis
horasis
posted by stebaldos at 6:06 PM
0 comments
Arms transfers to Iraq, 1970-2004
Arms transfers to Iraq, 1970-2004
SIPRI
SIPRI
posted by stebaldos at 6:05 PM
0 comments
Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund Reports
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow Statement on the 2005 Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund Reports
posted by stebaldos at 6:03 PM
0 comments
Oltre 10 milioni di immigrati illegali negli States
L’11 settembre non sembra aver scalfito il “sogno americano” di milioni di persone che continuano ad entrare negli States a caccia di fortuna. Le politiche adottate dall’amministrazione Bush per fronteggiare il terrorismo, tra cui l’inasprimento dei controlli alle frontiere, e le recenti difficoltà dell’economia, non fermano l’immigrazione illegale negli Stati Uniti che registra un incremento del 23% dal 2000 e supera la soglia simbolica dei dieci milioni (da 8,4 milioni a 10,3). Lo rivela un rapporto diffuso lunedì scorso dal Pew Hispanic Center, gruppo di ricerca privato con sede a Washington, che ha analizzato i dati governativi forniti dall’Us Census Bureau e il Department of Labour.
La stima tiene conto di diverse categorie di immigrati: dai clandestini, alle persone con visto scaduto, a chi ha semplicemente violato le leggi d’immigrazione. “Gli sforzi attuati alle frontiere non hanno prodotto una riduzione dei flussi”, ha dichiarato il direttore del centro di ricerca. I dati sono destinati ad alimentare il dibattito, già particolarmente caldo soprattutto all’interno del Partito Repubblicano, profondamente diviso tra intransigenti e non (lo stesso Bush ha cercato di convincere i suoi della bontà di un programma di concessione visti per lavoratori messicani temporanei). “E’ evidente che l’America ha perso il controllo delle sue frontiere” ha commentato Steven Camarota, direttore del Center for Immigration Studies, auspicando un irrigidimento dei controlli.
L’altro nodo della questione è se l’immigrazione aiuti o meno la crescita del Paese. Se la presenza - pur illegale – degli immigrati costituisca uno dei motori nascosti dell’attuale economia americana. Nonostante il rapporto del Pew Hispanic Center ammetta di non riuscire a fornire dei valori attendibili si stima comunque un’incidenza del 5% di lavoratori illegali sul numero totale.
In questo senso più dei numeri, possono provare a spiegare la realtà le vicende di cronaca. Una su tutte, la recente decisione di Wal-Mart di pagare 11 milioni di dollari per aver utilizzato centinaia di immigrati clandestini tra il 1998 e il 2003 per la pulizia dei propri centri. Il gigante della grande distribuzione ha concluso il patteggiamento - si tratta della sanzione più alta mai pagata negli Usa per un’infrazione del genere - senza ammettere le responsabilità che le venivano addebitate, sostenendo di essere all’oscuro del fatto, e solo grazie all’impegno della compagnia ad instaurare un meccanismo di sorveglianza interno, il governo ha rinunciato ad avviare una causa penale.L’analisi dei flussi migratori rivela altre novità interessanti. Sebbene i due terzi della popolazione si concentri in appena otto Stati ed un quarto degli illegali viva in California, (seguita da Florida e New York), dalla metà degli anni ’90 il fenomeno ha assunto modalità nuove. Ad essere toccati infatti oggi sono anche gli stati tradizionalmente con basse percentuali di stranieri come Arizona e North Carolina, o l’area metropolitana di Washington. Inoltre circa un sesto degli immigrati non autorizzati (1,7 milioni) è sotto i 18 anni con evidenti ricadute di ordine sociale.
In termini globali se la crescita (in media 485 mila nuovi arrivi all’anno) rimane stabile, presto saranno raggiunti gli 11 milioni. Oggi la maggioranza è costituita da messicani (5,9 milioni con il 57% del totale). Dopo mesi di dissapori, il controllo delle frontiere tra Messico e Stati Uniti sarà uno degli argomenti dell’incontro di oggi in Texas tra il presidente Vicente Fox, il primo ministro canadese Paul Martin e Bush. Nel vertice è prevista la firma dell’Alleanza per la Sicurezza e la Prosperità nell’America del Nord, considerato dalle parti come il rilancio del Nafta e l’avvio di un processo d’integrazione regionale in materia di commercio, trasporto e sicurezza.
stefano baldolini
EuropaQuotidiano di oggi 23 marzo 2005
La stima tiene conto di diverse categorie di immigrati: dai clandestini, alle persone con visto scaduto, a chi ha semplicemente violato le leggi d’immigrazione. “Gli sforzi attuati alle frontiere non hanno prodotto una riduzione dei flussi”, ha dichiarato il direttore del centro di ricerca. I dati sono destinati ad alimentare il dibattito, già particolarmente caldo soprattutto all’interno del Partito Repubblicano, profondamente diviso tra intransigenti e non (lo stesso Bush ha cercato di convincere i suoi della bontà di un programma di concessione visti per lavoratori messicani temporanei). “E’ evidente che l’America ha perso il controllo delle sue frontiere” ha commentato Steven Camarota, direttore del Center for Immigration Studies, auspicando un irrigidimento dei controlli.
L’altro nodo della questione è se l’immigrazione aiuti o meno la crescita del Paese. Se la presenza - pur illegale – degli immigrati costituisca uno dei motori nascosti dell’attuale economia americana. Nonostante il rapporto del Pew Hispanic Center ammetta di non riuscire a fornire dei valori attendibili si stima comunque un’incidenza del 5% di lavoratori illegali sul numero totale.
In questo senso più dei numeri, possono provare a spiegare la realtà le vicende di cronaca. Una su tutte, la recente decisione di Wal-Mart di pagare 11 milioni di dollari per aver utilizzato centinaia di immigrati clandestini tra il 1998 e il 2003 per la pulizia dei propri centri. Il gigante della grande distribuzione ha concluso il patteggiamento - si tratta della sanzione più alta mai pagata negli Usa per un’infrazione del genere - senza ammettere le responsabilità che le venivano addebitate, sostenendo di essere all’oscuro del fatto, e solo grazie all’impegno della compagnia ad instaurare un meccanismo di sorveglianza interno, il governo ha rinunciato ad avviare una causa penale.L’analisi dei flussi migratori rivela altre novità interessanti. Sebbene i due terzi della popolazione si concentri in appena otto Stati ed un quarto degli illegali viva in California, (seguita da Florida e New York), dalla metà degli anni ’90 il fenomeno ha assunto modalità nuove. Ad essere toccati infatti oggi sono anche gli stati tradizionalmente con basse percentuali di stranieri come Arizona e North Carolina, o l’area metropolitana di Washington. Inoltre circa un sesto degli immigrati non autorizzati (1,7 milioni) è sotto i 18 anni con evidenti ricadute di ordine sociale.
In termini globali se la crescita (in media 485 mila nuovi arrivi all’anno) rimane stabile, presto saranno raggiunti gli 11 milioni. Oggi la maggioranza è costituita da messicani (5,9 milioni con il 57% del totale). Dopo mesi di dissapori, il controllo delle frontiere tra Messico e Stati Uniti sarà uno degli argomenti dell’incontro di oggi in Texas tra il presidente Vicente Fox, il primo ministro canadese Paul Martin e Bush. Nel vertice è prevista la firma dell’Alleanza per la Sicurezza e la Prosperità nell’America del Nord, considerato dalle parti come il rilancio del Nafta e l’avvio di un processo d’integrazione regionale in materia di commercio, trasporto e sicurezza.
stefano baldolini
EuropaQuotidiano di oggi 23 marzo 2005
posted by stebaldos at 1:21 PM
0 comments
Friday, March 18, 2005
sembra resistere la tela di Bush
Reazioni contrastanti alla nomina di Wolfowitz, sembra resistere la tela di Bush
Stefano Baldolini
La risposta a caldo della comunità internazionale alla “candidatura impresentabile” di Paul Wolfowitz alla presidenza della Banca Mondiale può considerarsi decisamente interlocutoria. E dunque qualcosa in più di un mezzo successo per il Bush seconda maniera. Quello che invia la neo-segretaria di Stato Condy Rice a ricucire lo strappo atlantico più o meno negli stessi giorni in cui a Davos si discuteva (senza alcun rappresentante di spicco americano) di lotta alla povertà e di governance globale, quello che giunge di persona nel cuore dell’Europa, quello che prima di tirare fuori il “falco dal cilindro” chiama le cancellerie di mezzo mondo, da Chirac al presidente sud africano Thabo Mbeki (passando per Berlusconi).
Con il risultato che ogni protagonista è sembrato limitarsi a rispettare senza troppa convinzione il proprio spartito, in un concerto complessivo di cause-effetti ai quali la tela diplomatica di Bush sembra ormai ben attrezzata.
Così, se il segretario al Foreign Office britannico, Jack Straw, ha accolto positivamente l'annuncio e si è detto pronto a lavorare con Wolfowitz, “una personalità di spicco, esperta sul piano internazionale”, decisamente più tiepide sono state le reazioni del suo collega francese, Michel Barnier, che ha provato a “depotenziare” la mossa Usa (“è una proposta. La esamineremo in funzione della personalità ed eventualmente di altri candidati”), o del governo tedesco.
“L'entusiasmo nella vecchia Europa non è proprio travolgente”, ha dichiarato il ministro dello sviluppo Heidemaria Wieczorek-Seul, con una punta di humour decisamente british.
Sullo sfondo, la cautela della Commissione europea, che si è limitata a "prendere nota" della designazione. “Per noi la cosa importante è che lo sviluppo sia al centro dell'azione della Banca mondiale”, ha dichiarato un portavoce di Bruxelles.
“La nomina è stata una sorpresa per qualcuno. Comunque Wolfowitz deve avere il tempo di definire se stesso prima che tutti gli altri lo definiscano. Aspettiamo e vediamo cosa succedera”, ha aggiunto il commissario europeo al commercio estero, Peter Mandelson.
Positiva la reazione del Giappone. “Wolfowitz è una gran persona e ben preparato sui temi relativi allo sviluppo in Asia”, ha dichiarato Hiroyuki Hosoda, dell’esecutivo di Tokio.
E l’ideologo della guerra irachena piace al Direttore del Fmi, de Rato, perché porterà “una serie impressionante di esperienze nel servizio pubblico, tra cui la gestione degli affari internazionali, in particolare in Asia e in Medio Oriente”.
Ci provano le ong a mettere qualche granello di sabbia nell’ingranaggio.
Dave Timms, portavoce del World Development Network, ha definito “terrificante” la designazione. Il numero due del Pentagono è “inesperto e una figura che divide”, ha dichiarato Patrick Watt, della britannica Action Aid.
Non manca il dibattito nel mondo accademico. Tra le voci più critiche, Jeffrey Sachs, il direttore dell’Earth Institute alla Columbia University, che punta l’indice contro la presunta inadeguatezza culturale. “E’ il momento per altri candidati più competenti di farsi avanti”, ha dichiarato il consigliere di fiducia in materia di povertà di Kofi Annan.
“Non abbiamo bisogno di una persona competente in sviluppo”, gli ha risposto Allan Metzer, tra gli studiosi più critici di Banca Mondiale e Fondo Monetario. “Alla Banca Mondiale siamo pieni di persone così. La questione chiave è amministrativa.”
Tutto secondo copione anche sui media. Con il Wall Street Journal, vicino ai neoconservatori, particolarmente favorevole alla designazione, e gli altri alla finestra. E mentre Al Jazeera sottolinea che “la nomina avrà una particolare importanza per Israele. Che la Banca Mondiale giocherà un ruolo chiave a Gaza nell’attuazione del piano di ritiro di Sharon”, è proprio attraverso la stampa, che lo stesso Wolfowitz prova a stemperare il clima, come detto neanche troppo acceso.
“Prima di avere una mia visione, avrò bisogno di ascoltare molto.. Io credo profondamente nell’obiettivo dello sviluppo”, ha dichiarato con toni decisamente concilianti al Financial Times, il “crociato della democrazia”, che si è detto ispirato, nella sua nuova missione, dal recente tsunami.
Venerdì 18 marzo 2005 su Europa Quotidiano
Stefano Baldolini
La risposta a caldo della comunità internazionale alla “candidatura impresentabile” di Paul Wolfowitz alla presidenza della Banca Mondiale può considerarsi decisamente interlocutoria. E dunque qualcosa in più di un mezzo successo per il Bush seconda maniera. Quello che invia la neo-segretaria di Stato Condy Rice a ricucire lo strappo atlantico più o meno negli stessi giorni in cui a Davos si discuteva (senza alcun rappresentante di spicco americano) di lotta alla povertà e di governance globale, quello che giunge di persona nel cuore dell’Europa, quello che prima di tirare fuori il “falco dal cilindro” chiama le cancellerie di mezzo mondo, da Chirac al presidente sud africano Thabo Mbeki (passando per Berlusconi).
Con il risultato che ogni protagonista è sembrato limitarsi a rispettare senza troppa convinzione il proprio spartito, in un concerto complessivo di cause-effetti ai quali la tela diplomatica di Bush sembra ormai ben attrezzata.
Così, se il segretario al Foreign Office britannico, Jack Straw, ha accolto positivamente l'annuncio e si è detto pronto a lavorare con Wolfowitz, “una personalità di spicco, esperta sul piano internazionale”, decisamente più tiepide sono state le reazioni del suo collega francese, Michel Barnier, che ha provato a “depotenziare” la mossa Usa (“è una proposta. La esamineremo in funzione della personalità ed eventualmente di altri candidati”), o del governo tedesco.
“L'entusiasmo nella vecchia Europa non è proprio travolgente”, ha dichiarato il ministro dello sviluppo Heidemaria Wieczorek-Seul, con una punta di humour decisamente british.
Sullo sfondo, la cautela della Commissione europea, che si è limitata a "prendere nota" della designazione. “Per noi la cosa importante è che lo sviluppo sia al centro dell'azione della Banca mondiale”, ha dichiarato un portavoce di Bruxelles.
“La nomina è stata una sorpresa per qualcuno. Comunque Wolfowitz deve avere il tempo di definire se stesso prima che tutti gli altri lo definiscano. Aspettiamo e vediamo cosa succedera”, ha aggiunto il commissario europeo al commercio estero, Peter Mandelson.
Positiva la reazione del Giappone. “Wolfowitz è una gran persona e ben preparato sui temi relativi allo sviluppo in Asia”, ha dichiarato Hiroyuki Hosoda, dell’esecutivo di Tokio.
E l’ideologo della guerra irachena piace al Direttore del Fmi, de Rato, perché porterà “una serie impressionante di esperienze nel servizio pubblico, tra cui la gestione degli affari internazionali, in particolare in Asia e in Medio Oriente”.
Ci provano le ong a mettere qualche granello di sabbia nell’ingranaggio.
Dave Timms, portavoce del World Development Network, ha definito “terrificante” la designazione. Il numero due del Pentagono è “inesperto e una figura che divide”, ha dichiarato Patrick Watt, della britannica Action Aid.
Non manca il dibattito nel mondo accademico. Tra le voci più critiche, Jeffrey Sachs, il direttore dell’Earth Institute alla Columbia University, che punta l’indice contro la presunta inadeguatezza culturale. “E’ il momento per altri candidati più competenti di farsi avanti”, ha dichiarato il consigliere di fiducia in materia di povertà di Kofi Annan.
“Non abbiamo bisogno di una persona competente in sviluppo”, gli ha risposto Allan Metzer, tra gli studiosi più critici di Banca Mondiale e Fondo Monetario. “Alla Banca Mondiale siamo pieni di persone così. La questione chiave è amministrativa.”
Tutto secondo copione anche sui media. Con il Wall Street Journal, vicino ai neoconservatori, particolarmente favorevole alla designazione, e gli altri alla finestra. E mentre Al Jazeera sottolinea che “la nomina avrà una particolare importanza per Israele. Che la Banca Mondiale giocherà un ruolo chiave a Gaza nell’attuazione del piano di ritiro di Sharon”, è proprio attraverso la stampa, che lo stesso Wolfowitz prova a stemperare il clima, come detto neanche troppo acceso.
“Prima di avere una mia visione, avrò bisogno di ascoltare molto.. Io credo profondamente nell’obiettivo dello sviluppo”, ha dichiarato con toni decisamente concilianti al Financial Times, il “crociato della democrazia”, che si è detto ispirato, nella sua nuova missione, dal recente tsunami.
Venerdì 18 marzo 2005 su Europa Quotidiano
posted by stebaldos at 7:29 PM
0 comments
Sfollati, 8mila al giorno nel 2004
Sfollati, 8mila al giorno nel 2004
Il fenomeno riguarda 50 paesi, piu' colpita l'Africa
Ansa
rapporto IDP
Il fenomeno riguarda 50 paesi, piu' colpita l'Africa
Ansa
rapporto IDP
posted by stebaldos at 5:57 PM
0 comments
Le regole del club che governa il mondo
Le regole del club che governa il mondo
corriere doc
corriere doc
posted by stebaldos at 5:55 PM
0 comments
Cuban Prisons Cruel and Inhumane, Amnesty Says
Cuban Prisons Cruel and Inhumane, Amnesty Says
posted by stebaldos at 5:50 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
New Agency Policing Ethics Is Proposed for New Jersey
New Agency Policing Ethics Is Proposed for New Jersey
nytimes
nytimes
posted by stebaldos at 7:55 PM
0 comments
Monday, March 14, 2005
classifica Osce
buste paghe leggere in italia
la rep (camera
la rep (camera
posted by stebaldos at 6:59 PM
0 comments
Rapporto Onu a Ginevra sulla Bossi-Fini: non tutela i diritti umani.
Rapporto Onu a Ginevra sulla Bossi-Fini: non tutela i diritti umani by dall'unità Monday, Mar. 14, 2005 at 10:24 AMmail: Rapporto Onu a Ginevra sulla Bossi-Fini: non tutela i diritti umani.
Anche l’Onu contro la Bossi-Fini, la legge sull’immigrazione della destra: «troppo restrittiva, ostacola i diritti dei migranti». E le critiche all’Italia non si fermano qui: «no ai richiedenti asilo nei Cpt: sia garantita la presenza dell’Alto commissariato dell’Onu per i rifugiati». Tirata d’orecchie al Belpaese anche per il rilascio dei permessi di soggiorno a tempo. La situazione di giovani immigrati clandestini costretti da organizzazioni criminali o da individui a mendicare, vendere droga o prostituirsi in Italia preoccupa la relatrice speciale delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani sui migranti. In un rapporto redatto dopo una missione nel Paese, l’esperta identifica, inoltre, nell’economia sotterranea con l’offerta di posti di lavoro al nero «la principale causa dell'immigrazione clandestina in Italia». La relatrice Gabriella Rodriguez Pizarro esorta quindi le autorità italiane a devolvere «maggiori energie e risorse per perseguire coloro che impiegano immigrati in situazione irregolare». E, criticando alcuni aspetti della legge Bossi-Fini, afferma che è necessario vigilare affinchè le continue modifiche alla legge sugli stranieri siano conformi al rispetto dei diritti umani e dei trattati ratificati dall’Italia. La legge Bossi-Fini «fa della lotta contro l’immigrazione clandestina una delle priorità della strategia migratoria, ma si accompagna di severe restrizioni per l'entrata degli stranieri ed ostacola una serie di diritti degli immigrati presenti nel Paese», scrive l’esperta in un rapporto che sarà presentato alla Commissione dell’Onu sui diritti umani riunita in sessione annuale da lunedì a Ginevra. In generale, il rapporto (26 pagine) è una valutazione in chiaro-scuro della situazione in Italia, ex Paese d’emigrazione, che per «multiple ragioni d’ordine geografico ed economico» è ora tra «le destinazioni più ricercate dai migranti che vengono in Europa». Nelle conclusioni, la relatrice afferma che i contatti del governo italiano con i Paesi d’origine e di transito degli immigrati sono il «miglior mezzo di porre fine all’immigrazione clandestina». Pizarro è soddisfatta invece per il lavoro svolto dall’Italia contro la tratta degli esseri umani e la regolarizzare dei migranti con un impiego. Al governo italiano, la relatrice raccomanda, tra l'altro, un maggior dialogo tra istituzioni e società civile, la ratifica della Convenzione internazionale sulla protezione dei diritti degli immigrati e l’adozione di una legge organica sul diritto d’asilo.
Anche l’Onu contro la Bossi-Fini, la legge sull’immigrazione della destra: «troppo restrittiva, ostacola i diritti dei migranti». E le critiche all’Italia non si fermano qui: «no ai richiedenti asilo nei Cpt: sia garantita la presenza dell’Alto commissariato dell’Onu per i rifugiati». Tirata d’orecchie al Belpaese anche per il rilascio dei permessi di soggiorno a tempo. La situazione di giovani immigrati clandestini costretti da organizzazioni criminali o da individui a mendicare, vendere droga o prostituirsi in Italia preoccupa la relatrice speciale delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani sui migranti. In un rapporto redatto dopo una missione nel Paese, l’esperta identifica, inoltre, nell’economia sotterranea con l’offerta di posti di lavoro al nero «la principale causa dell'immigrazione clandestina in Italia». La relatrice Gabriella Rodriguez Pizarro esorta quindi le autorità italiane a devolvere «maggiori energie e risorse per perseguire coloro che impiegano immigrati in situazione irregolare». E, criticando alcuni aspetti della legge Bossi-Fini, afferma che è necessario vigilare affinchè le continue modifiche alla legge sugli stranieri siano conformi al rispetto dei diritti umani e dei trattati ratificati dall’Italia. La legge Bossi-Fini «fa della lotta contro l’immigrazione clandestina una delle priorità della strategia migratoria, ma si accompagna di severe restrizioni per l'entrata degli stranieri ed ostacola una serie di diritti degli immigrati presenti nel Paese», scrive l’esperta in un rapporto che sarà presentato alla Commissione dell’Onu sui diritti umani riunita in sessione annuale da lunedì a Ginevra. In generale, il rapporto (26 pagine) è una valutazione in chiaro-scuro della situazione in Italia, ex Paese d’emigrazione, che per «multiple ragioni d’ordine geografico ed economico» è ora tra «le destinazioni più ricercate dai migranti che vengono in Europa». Nelle conclusioni, la relatrice afferma che i contatti del governo italiano con i Paesi d’origine e di transito degli immigrati sono il «miglior mezzo di porre fine all’immigrazione clandestina». Pizarro è soddisfatta invece per il lavoro svolto dall’Italia contro la tratta degli esseri umani e la regolarizzare dei migranti con un impiego. Al governo italiano, la relatrice raccomanda, tra l'altro, un maggior dialogo tra istituzioni e società civile, la ratifica della Convenzione internazionale sulla protezione dei diritti degli immigrati e l’adozione di una legge organica sul diritto d’asilo.
posted by stebaldos at 6:50 PM
0 comments
Rapporto Onu a Ginevra sulla Bossi-Fini: non tutela i diritti umani
Rapporto Onu a Ginevra sulla Bossi-Fini: non tutela i diritti umani
by dall'unità Monday, Mar. 14, 2005 at 10:24 AM
mail:
Rapporto Onu a Ginevra sulla Bossi-Fini: non tutela i diritti umani.
Anche l’Onu contro la Bossi-Fini, la legge sull’immigrazione della destra: «troppo restrittiva, ostacola i diritti dei migranti». E le critiche all’Italia non si fermano qui: «no ai richiedenti asilo nei Cpt: sia garantita la presenza dell’Alto commissariato dell’Onu per i rifugiati». Tirata d’orecchie al Belpaese anche per il rilascio dei permessi di soggiorno a tempo. La situazione di giovani immigrati clandestini costretti da organizzazioni criminali o da individui a mendicare, vendere droga o prostituirsi in Italia preoccupa la relatrice speciale delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani sui migranti. In un rapporto redatto dopo una missione nel Paese, l’esperta identifica, inoltre, nell’economia sotterranea con l’offerta di posti di lavoro al nero «la principale causa dell'immigrazione clandestina in Italia». La relatrice Gabriella Rodriguez Pizarro esorta quindi le autorità italiane a devolvere «maggiori energie e risorse per perseguire coloro che impiegano immigrati in situazione irregolare». E, criticando alcuni aspetti della legge Bossi-Fini, afferma che è necessario vigilare affinchè le continue modifiche alla legge sugli stranieri siano conformi al rispetto dei diritti umani e dei trattati ratificati dall’Italia. La legge Bossi-Fini «fa della lotta contro l’immigrazione clandestina una delle priorità della strategia migratoria, ma si accompagna di severe restrizioni per l'entrata degli stranieri ed ostacola una serie di diritti degli immigrati presenti nel Paese», scrive l’esperta in un rapporto che sarà presentato alla Commissione dell’Onu sui diritti umani riunita in sessione annuale da lunedì a Ginevra. In generale, il rapporto (26 pagine) è una valutazione in chiaro-scuro della situazione in Italia, ex Paese d’emigrazione, che per «multiple ragioni d’ordine geografico ed economico» è ora tra «le destinazioni più ricercate dai migranti che vengono in Europa». Nelle conclusioni, la relatrice afferma che i contatti del governo italiano con i Paesi d’origine e di transito degli immigrati sono il «miglior mezzo di porre fine all’immigrazione clandestina». Pizarro è soddisfatta invece per il lavoro svolto dall’Italia contro la tratta degli esseri umani e la regolarizzare dei migranti con un impiego. Al governo italiano, la relatrice raccomanda, tra l'altro, un maggior dialogo tra istituzioni e società civile, la ratifica della Convenzione internazionale sulla protezione dei diritti degli immigrati e l’adozione di una legge organica sul diritto d’asilo.
by dall'unità Monday, Mar. 14, 2005 at 10:24 AM
mail:
Rapporto Onu a Ginevra sulla Bossi-Fini: non tutela i diritti umani.
Anche l’Onu contro la Bossi-Fini, la legge sull’immigrazione della destra: «troppo restrittiva, ostacola i diritti dei migranti». E le critiche all’Italia non si fermano qui: «no ai richiedenti asilo nei Cpt: sia garantita la presenza dell’Alto commissariato dell’Onu per i rifugiati». Tirata d’orecchie al Belpaese anche per il rilascio dei permessi di soggiorno a tempo. La situazione di giovani immigrati clandestini costretti da organizzazioni criminali o da individui a mendicare, vendere droga o prostituirsi in Italia preoccupa la relatrice speciale delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani sui migranti. In un rapporto redatto dopo una missione nel Paese, l’esperta identifica, inoltre, nell’economia sotterranea con l’offerta di posti di lavoro al nero «la principale causa dell'immigrazione clandestina in Italia». La relatrice Gabriella Rodriguez Pizarro esorta quindi le autorità italiane a devolvere «maggiori energie e risorse per perseguire coloro che impiegano immigrati in situazione irregolare». E, criticando alcuni aspetti della legge Bossi-Fini, afferma che è necessario vigilare affinchè le continue modifiche alla legge sugli stranieri siano conformi al rispetto dei diritti umani e dei trattati ratificati dall’Italia. La legge Bossi-Fini «fa della lotta contro l’immigrazione clandestina una delle priorità della strategia migratoria, ma si accompagna di severe restrizioni per l'entrata degli stranieri ed ostacola una serie di diritti degli immigrati presenti nel Paese», scrive l’esperta in un rapporto che sarà presentato alla Commissione dell’Onu sui diritti umani riunita in sessione annuale da lunedì a Ginevra. In generale, il rapporto (26 pagine) è una valutazione in chiaro-scuro della situazione in Italia, ex Paese d’emigrazione, che per «multiple ragioni d’ordine geografico ed economico» è ora tra «le destinazioni più ricercate dai migranti che vengono in Europa». Nelle conclusioni, la relatrice afferma che i contatti del governo italiano con i Paesi d’origine e di transito degli immigrati sono il «miglior mezzo di porre fine all’immigrazione clandestina». Pizarro è soddisfatta invece per il lavoro svolto dall’Italia contro la tratta degli esseri umani e la regolarizzare dei migranti con un impiego. Al governo italiano, la relatrice raccomanda, tra l'altro, un maggior dialogo tra istituzioni e società civile, la ratifica della Convenzione internazionale sulla protezione dei diritti degli immigrati e l’adozione di una legge organica sul diritto d’asilo.
posted by stebaldos at 6:48 PM
0 comments
Report: Eni may bid for Unocal
Report: Eni may bid for Unocal
By MarketWatchLast Update: 1:24 AM ET March 14, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Italian oil company Eni SpA may be interested in bidding for Unocal Corp., according to a published report, setting the stage for a bidding war for the California oil and natural gas firm.
A story in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal early Monday citing people familiar with the matter reported Rome-based Eni (E: news, chart, profile) , which is 30 percent state owned, has yet to decide on a formal offer but has been studying Unocal in recent weeks.
See the story at WSJ.com.
Two weeks ago, ChevronTexaco (CVX: news, chart, profile) was reported to be weighing a bid for Unocal (UCL: news, chart, profile) , a move analysts said would help Chevron boost flagging reserves in key regions.
Unocal's market capitalization is now about $16.5 billion. Shares added almost 3 percent on Friday to close at $61.02. According to the Journal report, analysts have speculated that the final per-share price for Unocal could be much higher.
Representatives from Unocal and Eni could not be reached early Monday for comment on the report.
The Journal reported an Eni spokeswoman called talk of Unocal discussions "hypotheses from the market," saying that since Eni released its new strategic plan, many are speculating about how it will achieve its growth targets without a sizable acquisition. A Unocal spokesman declined to comment, according to the Journal.
Eni is the world's sixth-largest publicly owned oil-and-gas company by market value. U.S.-traded shares of Eni ended unchanged Friday at $132.90.
By MarketWatchLast Update: 1:24 AM ET March 14, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Italian oil company Eni SpA may be interested in bidding for Unocal Corp., according to a published report, setting the stage for a bidding war for the California oil and natural gas firm.
A story in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal early Monday citing people familiar with the matter reported Rome-based Eni (E: news, chart, profile) , which is 30 percent state owned, has yet to decide on a formal offer but has been studying Unocal in recent weeks.
See the story at WSJ.com.
Two weeks ago, ChevronTexaco (CVX: news, chart, profile) was reported to be weighing a bid for Unocal (UCL: news, chart, profile) , a move analysts said would help Chevron boost flagging reserves in key regions.
Unocal's market capitalization is now about $16.5 billion. Shares added almost 3 percent on Friday to close at $61.02. According to the Journal report, analysts have speculated that the final per-share price for Unocal could be much higher.
Representatives from Unocal and Eni could not be reached early Monday for comment on the report.
The Journal reported an Eni spokeswoman called talk of Unocal discussions "hypotheses from the market," saying that since Eni released its new strategic plan, many are speculating about how it will achieve its growth targets without a sizable acquisition. A Unocal spokesman declined to comment, according to the Journal.
Eni is the world's sixth-largest publicly owned oil-and-gas company by market value. U.S.-traded shares of Eni ended unchanged Friday at $132.90.
posted by stebaldos at 6:11 PM
0 comments
Can Papers End the Free Ride Online?
Ny times
March 14, 2005
Can Papers End the Free Ride Online?By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
onsumers are willing to spend millions of dollars on the Web when it comes to music services like iTunes and gaming sites like Xbox Live. But when it comes to online news, they are happy to read it but loath to pay for it.
Newspaper Web sites have been so popular that at some newspapers, including The New York Times, the number of people who read the paper online now surpasses the number who buy the print edition.
This migration of readers is beginning to transform the newspaper industry. Advertising revenue from online sites is booming and, while it accounts for only 2 percent or 3 percent of most newspapers' overall revenues, it is the fastest-growing source of revenue. And newspaper executives are watching anxiously as the number of online readers grows while the number of print readers declines.
"For some publishers, it really sticks in the craw that they are giving away their content for free," said Colby Atwood, vice president of Borrell Associates Inc., a media research firm. The giveaway means less support for expensive news-gathering operations and the potential erosion of advertising revenue from the print side, which is much more profitable.
"Newspapers are cannibalizing themselves," said Frederick W. Searby, an advertising and publishing analyst at J. P. Morgan.
As a result, nearly a decade after newspapers began building and showcasing their Web sites, one of the most vexing questions in newspaper economics endures: should publishers charge for Web news, knowing that they may drive readers away and into the arms of the competition?
Of the nation's 1,456 daily newspapers, only one national paper, The Wall Street Journal, which is published by Dow Jones & Company, and about 40 small dailies charge readers to use their Web sites. Other papers charge for either online access to portions of their content or offer online subscribers additional features.
The New York Times on the Web, which is owned by The New York Times Company, has been considering charging for years and is expected to make an announcement soon about its plans. In January, The Times's Web site had 1.4 million unique daily visitors. Its daily print circulation averaged 1,124,000 in 2004, down from its peak daily circulation of 1,176,000 in 1993.
Executives at The Times have suggested that the paper, which already charges for its crossword puzzle, news alerts and archives online, may start charging for other portions of its content, but would not follow the Journal model, which charges online readers $79 a year for everything.
(The Journal charges $39 a year to online readers who also subscribe to the printed newspaper.)
"A big part of the motivation for newspapers to charge for their online content is not the revenue it will generate, but the revenue it will save, by slowing the erosion of their print subscriptions," Mr. Atwood said. "We're in the midst of a long and painful transition."
Most big papers are watching and waiting as they study the patterns of online readers. Analysts said that the growth in readers was slowing but that readers appeared to be spending more time on the Web sites.
"We're always looking at the issue," said Caroline Little, publisher of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, the online media subsidiary of The Washington Post Company. She said that the online registration process that most papers now require for use of their Web sites, while free, lays the groundwork for charging if papers decide to go that route.
"You're getting information from your users and you can target ads to your users, which is more efficient for advertisers," she said. "This has been a dipping of the toe in the water."
The Post has no plans to charge now because it would mean too big of a drop-off in readers. "It's just not a strong financial proposition at this point," she said.
Executives at other newspaper groups, including the Gannett Company, which publishes USA Today, said they had no plans to start charging either.
A report last week from the Online Publishers Association underscored the challenges facing newspapers in selling news. Internet users spent $88 million for general news in 2004, or just 0.4 percent more than they paid in 2003, the report said; by comparison, they spent $414 million on entertainment, up 90 percent.
Rob Runett, director of electronic media communications at the Newspaper Association of America, eyed the report ruefully. News, he said, may become an acronym for "Not Ever Willing to Spend."
The Tribune Company, which owns The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune and other papers, has conducted limited experiments in charging for access, some more successful than others.
The Los Angeles Times charges $4.95 a month for its Calendar Live section, which covers entertainment and provides listings and restaurant reviews, but traffic to the site has declined and a spokeswoman said the paper was reviewing the decision to charge for it.
The Chicago Tribune offers a "subscriber advantage" program, which gives print subscribers free access to archives and bonuses online. "It's an interesting first step to see how people react in trying to differentiate between the two products," said Alison Scholly, general manager of Chicago Tribune Interactive.
The difficulty comes in determining what readers will pay for on the Web. Most executives agree that national news can be found in so many places that it would be self-defeating to try to charge for it. But they are finding that readers will pay for sports, if the Web offers more than the printed page. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides in-depth coverage of the Green Bay Packers, along with blogs, fan photos and audio reports, in "Packer Insider" for $34.95 a year.
But for the most part, publishers make money on Web sites by selling space to advertisers, and that is a booming business. Mr. Atwood at Borrell said a preliminary analysis of online revenues for about 700 daily newspaper Web sites showed an average increase of 45 percent from 2003 to 2004.
But some newspapers want to develop a cadre of paying readers as a second stream of revenue beyond the advertising.
Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, said of relying on advertising as the sole revenue stream: "My main concern is that, however we distribute our work, we have to generate the money to pay for it. The advertising model looks appealing now, but do we want our future to depend on that single source of revenue? What happens if advertising goes flat? What happens when somebody develops software to filter out advertising - TiVo for the Web?"
At the same time, he said, charging for the Web site could alienate both current readers and potential new readers, particularly in growing markets like China and India, and The Times would be limiting its global reach.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle for newspapers is that online readers have been conditioned to expect free news. "Most newspapers believe that if they charged for the Web, the number of users would decline to such an extent that their advertising revenues would decline more than they get from charging users," said Gary B. Pruitt, chairman and chief executive of the McClatchy Company, which publishes The Sacramento Bee, The Star Tribune in Minneapolis and other papers, which do not charge for their Web sites.
The Wall Street Journal experiment suggests the contrary. About 700,000 people subscribe to its online edition, with 300,000 of them subscribing to the Web edition only and 400,000 subscribing to both the online and print editions. The print edition has 1.8 million subscribers.
"If you have strong value, people will pay for it," said Todd H. Larsen, president of consumer electronic publishing for Dow Jones, which owns The Journal. "There is nothing so magical about the Internet that everything has to be free."
The Journal's experience may not translate to other papers. It is primarily a financial paper, and analysts said that it is a business expense for many readers buying it. Moreover, charging online brings its own problems. By limiting readership to subscribers, papers also limit the amount of advertising space they can sell. Earlier this year, Dow Jones spent more than $519 million for MarketWatch, the financial news Web site, largely as a way to attract advertising that it was not getting online.
When the paper first charged for its Web site in 1996, daily traffic fell by about two-thirds, said Rich Jaroslovsky, who was the managing editor of The Wall Street Journal Online at the time and is now a managing editor at Bloomberg News.
"You have to take the hit some time if you do this," he said of charging for a Web site. "We took the pain because we felt over the longer term, we'd see the gain."
Since 1997, The Journal's Web site has grown, although growth has slowed dramatically. Subscriptions jumped 35 percent from the third quarter of 1999 to the third quarter of 2000, for example, but grew by just 2 percent from 2003 to 2004, according to the company. This reflects an industrywide slowdown, said Merrill Brown, the founding editor of MSNBC.com and a media consultant. "There is no question that growth has slowed as the medium has matured," he said.
"It's a pretty stagnant business for a variety of reasons," he added. "At a moment when big papers are so financially stressed and their prospects uncertain, they aren't investing at the level they need to grow their alternative distribution platforms."
On a smaller scale, another newspaper that charges for its Web site is The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash., which has a print circulation of around 100,000. About 20,000 of those print subscribers also get the paper online for no additional fee; just 545 people pay for the Web edition only, at $7 per month.
Ken Sands, the online publisher, who until a month ago was the managing editor of the print edition, said the paper decided to charge for the Web in an effort to save the print edition.
"We had the sense that a lot of people had canceled their print subscriptions because they could read the paper for free online," he said. He said that as soon as the paper started charging for the Web, in September, new daily traffic, which had been growing by more than 40 percent a year, stopped cold. He said that traffic was 5 percent lower this January than it was in January a year ago. He added that the print circulation had been steadily declining somewhat anyway, and so he could not blame the Web for that.
"Print is going the way it's going, which is down, which is unfortunate because it's the revenue engine that keeps this whole thing going," he said. "The online business model won't ever be able to support the whole news infrastructure."
Mr. Jaroslovsky, the former editor of The Wall Street Journal Online, said that some publishers were regretting not having charged for the Web back in the 1990's when it was developing, because doing so now will be a bigger shock to their readers. Also, he said, the stakes are higher.
"When we did this, we were at the beginning of an investment curve and the amount of money at stake was not as great," he said. "Today, if you make a wrong decision, there's a chance it will be not only embarrassing, but very costly."
March 14, 2005
Can Papers End the Free Ride Online?By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
onsumers are willing to spend millions of dollars on the Web when it comes to music services like iTunes and gaming sites like Xbox Live. But when it comes to online news, they are happy to read it but loath to pay for it.
Newspaper Web sites have been so popular that at some newspapers, including The New York Times, the number of people who read the paper online now surpasses the number who buy the print edition.
This migration of readers is beginning to transform the newspaper industry. Advertising revenue from online sites is booming and, while it accounts for only 2 percent or 3 percent of most newspapers' overall revenues, it is the fastest-growing source of revenue. And newspaper executives are watching anxiously as the number of online readers grows while the number of print readers declines.
"For some publishers, it really sticks in the craw that they are giving away their content for free," said Colby Atwood, vice president of Borrell Associates Inc., a media research firm. The giveaway means less support for expensive news-gathering operations and the potential erosion of advertising revenue from the print side, which is much more profitable.
"Newspapers are cannibalizing themselves," said Frederick W. Searby, an advertising and publishing analyst at J. P. Morgan.
As a result, nearly a decade after newspapers began building and showcasing their Web sites, one of the most vexing questions in newspaper economics endures: should publishers charge for Web news, knowing that they may drive readers away and into the arms of the competition?
Of the nation's 1,456 daily newspapers, only one national paper, The Wall Street Journal, which is published by Dow Jones & Company, and about 40 small dailies charge readers to use their Web sites. Other papers charge for either online access to portions of their content or offer online subscribers additional features.
The New York Times on the Web, which is owned by The New York Times Company, has been considering charging for years and is expected to make an announcement soon about its plans. In January, The Times's Web site had 1.4 million unique daily visitors. Its daily print circulation averaged 1,124,000 in 2004, down from its peak daily circulation of 1,176,000 in 1993.
Executives at The Times have suggested that the paper, which already charges for its crossword puzzle, news alerts and archives online, may start charging for other portions of its content, but would not follow the Journal model, which charges online readers $79 a year for everything.
(The Journal charges $39 a year to online readers who also subscribe to the printed newspaper.)
"A big part of the motivation for newspapers to charge for their online content is not the revenue it will generate, but the revenue it will save, by slowing the erosion of their print subscriptions," Mr. Atwood said. "We're in the midst of a long and painful transition."
Most big papers are watching and waiting as they study the patterns of online readers. Analysts said that the growth in readers was slowing but that readers appeared to be spending more time on the Web sites.
"We're always looking at the issue," said Caroline Little, publisher of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, the online media subsidiary of The Washington Post Company. She said that the online registration process that most papers now require for use of their Web sites, while free, lays the groundwork for charging if papers decide to go that route.
"You're getting information from your users and you can target ads to your users, which is more efficient for advertisers," she said. "This has been a dipping of the toe in the water."
The Post has no plans to charge now because it would mean too big of a drop-off in readers. "It's just not a strong financial proposition at this point," she said.
Executives at other newspaper groups, including the Gannett Company, which publishes USA Today, said they had no plans to start charging either.
A report last week from the Online Publishers Association underscored the challenges facing newspapers in selling news. Internet users spent $88 million for general news in 2004, or just 0.4 percent more than they paid in 2003, the report said; by comparison, they spent $414 million on entertainment, up 90 percent.
Rob Runett, director of electronic media communications at the Newspaper Association of America, eyed the report ruefully. News, he said, may become an acronym for "Not Ever Willing to Spend."
The Tribune Company, which owns The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune and other papers, has conducted limited experiments in charging for access, some more successful than others.
The Los Angeles Times charges $4.95 a month for its Calendar Live section, which covers entertainment and provides listings and restaurant reviews, but traffic to the site has declined and a spokeswoman said the paper was reviewing the decision to charge for it.
The Chicago Tribune offers a "subscriber advantage" program, which gives print subscribers free access to archives and bonuses online. "It's an interesting first step to see how people react in trying to differentiate between the two products," said Alison Scholly, general manager of Chicago Tribune Interactive.
The difficulty comes in determining what readers will pay for on the Web. Most executives agree that national news can be found in so many places that it would be self-defeating to try to charge for it. But they are finding that readers will pay for sports, if the Web offers more than the printed page. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides in-depth coverage of the Green Bay Packers, along with blogs, fan photos and audio reports, in "Packer Insider" for $34.95 a year.
But for the most part, publishers make money on Web sites by selling space to advertisers, and that is a booming business. Mr. Atwood at Borrell said a preliminary analysis of online revenues for about 700 daily newspaper Web sites showed an average increase of 45 percent from 2003 to 2004.
But some newspapers want to develop a cadre of paying readers as a second stream of revenue beyond the advertising.
Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, said of relying on advertising as the sole revenue stream: "My main concern is that, however we distribute our work, we have to generate the money to pay for it. The advertising model looks appealing now, but do we want our future to depend on that single source of revenue? What happens if advertising goes flat? What happens when somebody develops software to filter out advertising - TiVo for the Web?"
At the same time, he said, charging for the Web site could alienate both current readers and potential new readers, particularly in growing markets like China and India, and The Times would be limiting its global reach.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle for newspapers is that online readers have been conditioned to expect free news. "Most newspapers believe that if they charged for the Web, the number of users would decline to such an extent that their advertising revenues would decline more than they get from charging users," said Gary B. Pruitt, chairman and chief executive of the McClatchy Company, which publishes The Sacramento Bee, The Star Tribune in Minneapolis and other papers, which do not charge for their Web sites.
The Wall Street Journal experiment suggests the contrary. About 700,000 people subscribe to its online edition, with 300,000 of them subscribing to the Web edition only and 400,000 subscribing to both the online and print editions. The print edition has 1.8 million subscribers.
"If you have strong value, people will pay for it," said Todd H. Larsen, president of consumer electronic publishing for Dow Jones, which owns The Journal. "There is nothing so magical about the Internet that everything has to be free."
The Journal's experience may not translate to other papers. It is primarily a financial paper, and analysts said that it is a business expense for many readers buying it. Moreover, charging online brings its own problems. By limiting readership to subscribers, papers also limit the amount of advertising space they can sell. Earlier this year, Dow Jones spent more than $519 million for MarketWatch, the financial news Web site, largely as a way to attract advertising that it was not getting online.
When the paper first charged for its Web site in 1996, daily traffic fell by about two-thirds, said Rich Jaroslovsky, who was the managing editor of The Wall Street Journal Online at the time and is now a managing editor at Bloomberg News.
"You have to take the hit some time if you do this," he said of charging for a Web site. "We took the pain because we felt over the longer term, we'd see the gain."
Since 1997, The Journal's Web site has grown, although growth has slowed dramatically. Subscriptions jumped 35 percent from the third quarter of 1999 to the third quarter of 2000, for example, but grew by just 2 percent from 2003 to 2004, according to the company. This reflects an industrywide slowdown, said Merrill Brown, the founding editor of MSNBC.com and a media consultant. "There is no question that growth has slowed as the medium has matured," he said.
"It's a pretty stagnant business for a variety of reasons," he added. "At a moment when big papers are so financially stressed and their prospects uncertain, they aren't investing at the level they need to grow their alternative distribution platforms."
On a smaller scale, another newspaper that charges for its Web site is The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash., which has a print circulation of around 100,000. About 20,000 of those print subscribers also get the paper online for no additional fee; just 545 people pay for the Web edition only, at $7 per month.
Ken Sands, the online publisher, who until a month ago was the managing editor of the print edition, said the paper decided to charge for the Web in an effort to save the print edition.
"We had the sense that a lot of people had canceled their print subscriptions because they could read the paper for free online," he said. He said that as soon as the paper started charging for the Web, in September, new daily traffic, which had been growing by more than 40 percent a year, stopped cold. He said that traffic was 5 percent lower this January than it was in January a year ago. He added that the print circulation had been steadily declining somewhat anyway, and so he could not blame the Web for that.
"Print is going the way it's going, which is down, which is unfortunate because it's the revenue engine that keeps this whole thing going," he said. "The online business model won't ever be able to support the whole news infrastructure."
Mr. Jaroslovsky, the former editor of The Wall Street Journal Online, said that some publishers were regretting not having charged for the Web back in the 1990's when it was developing, because doing so now will be a bigger shock to their readers. Also, he said, the stakes are higher.
"When we did this, we were at the beginning of an investment curve and the amount of money at stake was not as great," he said. "Today, if you make a wrong decision, there's a chance it will be not only embarrassing, but very costly."
posted by stebaldos at 6:08 PM
0 comments
Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysis
Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysis
Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysisby Hudson Thu Mar 10th, 2005 at 20:39:11 PSTSUBTITLE:
Some limitations of Lakoff's "framing," and the evolving Republican strategy to fence voters off from Democratic ideas, leaders and values -- before the debate even begins
INTRODUCTION: BEYOND THE FRAME
In the past year, like so many other Democrats and progressives, I latched onto George Lakoff's advice about "framing" with the ferociously desperate optimism of a drowning man spotting a passing tree trunk.
I pre-ordered Don't Think of an Elephant, I googled a half-dozen Lakoff interviews, and I urged every liberal-minded friend to do the same.
Indeed, framing has become an unremitting refrain of every progressive op-ed piece, Haloscan post and DFA Meetup. Just mention framing, and heads bob appreciatively up and down across the (chat) room. "We must frame our arguments better!" is fast becoming a latter-day gloss on the naive proclamation of Boxer in Animal Farm ("I will work harder!") -- a pledge he makes right up to the minute the pigs ship him off to the glue factory. Diaries :: Hudson's diary ::
Despite the following criticisms, Lakoff's exhortation remains a welcome and commonsense one. To re-take control of the national discourse, Democrats of course must redefine the terms of debate in ways which predispose the audience to be more accepting of progressive arguments--all the while exhibiting the same or greater "message discipline" as our Republican nemeses.
As the 2004 campaign wore on, however, two things became apparent: (1) that John Kerry and other prominent Democrats were not showing much skill, charm or even discipline in these new framing efforts--which the Republicans had been practicing for a least a decade; (2) even more devastatingly, that just as Democrats began to try to master framing, the Republicans were one step ahead with a more powerful, and far more underhanded strategy.
For lack of a better term, I've started to call that more recent Republican strategy "fencing."
ANALYSIS: WHAT IS FENCING / WHAT IS A FENCE?
A fence is any political idea, campaign or mindset which is intended to wall voters off from the opposite side before the public even gets to hear the opposing argument.
In fairness to Lakoff, a fence may just be a kind of superframe: far cruder, far less permeable, and virtually insurmountable once erected. But if frames are a window to view the world through, then fences block much of that world out -- rendering the frames largely irrelevant.
A candidate or party doesn't get a chance to frame its issues if a metaphorical fence separates it from the audience. When the voters can't (or, more accurately, won't) see and hear our side of the debate, all those handy new frames become useless.
To better explain how Republicans are using fencing to trump the Democrats' newfound interest in framing, one first needs to take a brief look at the underpinnings of framing.
Framing starts with the assumption that there is going to be an actual debate about issues. As Democrats, we like to think that the public sincerely wants and deserves to hear at least two cases about various key issues (such as abortion, taxes, the environment, security) and then decide for ourselves which side made a more convincing argument.
Lakoff's insight was that in any debate, the side which spends more time crafting clever "frames" to define each of those issues has a major advantage. One of his oft-repeated examples is the right's clever invention (and endless repetition) of the phrase "climate change" in place of "global warming," to make that urgent and potentially devastating crisis seem more natural, just part of a gradual trend, rendering the public more apathetic.
Therein lies the problem with the Democrats' late adoption of framing: it assumes that people always want to hear from more than one side before taking a position.
This is where the increasingly common and infinitely more insidious Republican strategy of "fencing" comes in. As we Democrats play catch-up on the framing of specific issues, the Republicans (having largely mastered framing already) have refocused and redoubled their efforts to fence voters off from ever contemplating Democratic and progressive frames.
While still holding up their end when necessary to frame a debate, the Republicans are spending more and more of their time browbeating the public into blocking out our arguments altogether.
In the Bush-Kerry campaign, "fencing" mostly took the form of playground insults and other humiliations:
Kerry looks French. Kerry spends a fortune on haircuts. Kerry is vain and pompous. Kerry has funny hair. Kerry's voice is funny. Kerry reminds people of Lurch on The Addams family. Kerry wears Lycra--fluorescent-striped Lycra. Kerry rides a fancy European bike. Kerry looks fruity when he windsurfs. Kerry wears expensive suits, ties, sunglasses, shoes and belts. Kerry asks for French mustard when he orders a hot dog. Kerry falls when he skis, then blames it on the Secret Service. Kerry hung out with Hanoi Jane. Kerry threw his medals over a fence. Kerry faked his war wounds. Kerry only marries rich women. Kerry's latest wife is a rich, loudmouthed foreigner whom he can't control. Kerry is a phony. And of course, Kerry flip-flops.
Almost all of these jibes--which most sixth graders would be embarrassed to say--were also accompanied by photographs or video.
The goals of these juvenile but relentless attacks was obvious: To make Kerry into a ridiculous figure. To put the very idea of taking John Kerry seriously out of the realm of possibility. To make people dismiss Kerry's candidacy no matter how much sense he made. Don't listen to the French-looking phony. Whatever he says, it can only be an absurd lie, coming from such a pompous, traitorous, pampered Lurch-like gold digger.
Though you'd think that most Americans would resent such below-the-belt and immature jabs at a serious politician, the effect over time is to build an edifice of humiliation that does effectively fence a significant number voters off from the opponent. This further enabled the Bush campaign to focus narrowly on turnout and winning that slim margin among undecideds--while Kerry was still innocently trying to run a 1959-style campaign.
Like the trumped-up "Gore invented the Internet" line, these fencing efforts started at sites such as Drudge and on wingnut talk radio. These refrains were quickly picked up by late night comedians and Fox News; and eventually came home to roost in the legit media, as ostensibly liberal wits like Maureen Dowd simply couldn't resist joining in the junior high chorus of teases and taunts.
Fencing is increasingly used by Republicans very early in campaigns, both for public office and for specific initiatives, to brand the opponent as untouchable, so as to get as many voters as possible to don a blindfold -- voluntarily putting their fingers in their ears the minute a Democrats starts trying to framing an issue.
The Republican goal is to fence off voters from Democrats, so that only a small number of people need to be actually convinced via good old-fashioned logical persuasion, and to keep the party's base from ever straying off the reservation.
This allows Luntz, Rove & Co. to slice and dice the undecideds into even more bite-sized pieces who can be focus-grouped and sold the appropriate bill of goods--because they've already got close to a majority in their pocket. And it allows the Republican GOTV efforts that much more energized and targeted.
BACKLASH: WHEN FENCING GOES BAD
Like any political strategy, fencing is only as good as its implementation, and has to be tailored to each situation. The recent anti-Social Security campaign by USANext is shaping up as a textbook example of bad fencing--which due to its bullying nature can backfire far more explosively than a weak frame.
USANext's apparent hope was to fence the public off from the AARP. By trying to permanently tag that association with "anti-military"and "pro-gay" labels, it thought it could make voters ignore all the logical arguments (and also all the anxieties) that AARP could muster in defense of Social Security. The most obvious problems with USANext's approach were:
(A) the lack of an advance campaign to work up to the more outrageous charges, (B) the sheer clumsiness of its first round ads, (C) underestimating the credibility of its target and its ability to strike back, and (D) forgetting that nothing breeds aversion to change like a cashable check in one's mailbox every month; and lastly (E) the total implausibility of the allegations.
One could argue that the knocks against Kerry were equally ridiculous (French? Lerch? Lycra? Who cares?) ... and that these should have backfired, too. After all, how could this decorated combat veteran be turned into a phony sissy, while this Vietnam-dodging, costume-wearing former cheerleader is praised as a tough guy? It seems so improbable, in retrospect.
The differences between the successful Republican fencing of Kerry and the increasingly disastrous attempt to fence AARP were that with Kerry, the Republicans laid their groundwork, and had a vulnerable opponent. Against Kerry, they patiently engineered a slow escalation of personal attacks--and as it became clear that their target neither intended to retaliate, nor had a strong base of support to defend him, the attacks became more brazen -- culminating in the Swift Boat lunacy. If the Swift Boat ads had been run at the start of the campaign, they would have been laughed off the air. But by the time Rove launched this salvo, the public was all too ready to believe the charges, and had already begun to tune Kerry out.
Fencing helps explain why, despite appearing to demolish Bush in all three debates, Kerry still lost: by that time, there were not enough people still listening to gain ground.
CONCLUSION: CAN--OR SHOULD--DEMOCRATS FENCE, TOO?
So how do Democrats and Progressives counter these Republican's fencing strategies, and what does this mean for our party's nascent framing efforts?
I am not recommending that we totally abandon Lakoff's advice on framing. Rather, Democrats need to make sure that even as we become more adept and disciplined at framing specific issues, we haven't allowed ourselves to be hidden from the public behind a virtual fence that will keep us from being seen and heard at all.
Without stooping to the thoroughgoing unscrupulousness of our adversaries, we need to find opportunities (for example, with the current Social Security debate) to fence voters off from the right-wing for years to come. We should be saying at every opportunity: Bush doesn't respect the elderly. Cheney is lying again. Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. They want to give your savings to their Wall Street donors.And it could get harsher without straying from the truth: Republicans don't care if your grandmother is evicted or your grandfather has to eat cat food.
We need more than clever, soothing frames. We need to create solid, defensible fences of our own around this new Washington gang of so-called conservatives, who are more like quasi-fascists or Robber Barons. We need to be less shy, even as we continue to speak the truth -- which is adequately damning, so long as it's spoken plainly.
Our fences should be built not only from well-framed arguments, but also with powerfully accurate labels that stick permanently to the opposition. With the facts squarely on our side, it is possible to fence the Republicans based on reality, which is an insult enough to their Fox-y fantasy world.
The election of the outspoken Howard Dean as DNC chair is just one step in this direction for a party which needs to both play smarter and hit harder. We now need to turn the hubris of the current administration against itself, to relentlessy boost the number of voters who just won't believe anything Bush, Cheney or their successors say anymore.
And above all, to paraphrase both Pink Floyd and Gene Autry: We need to tear down the wall when anyone tries to fence us in.
- - - - - - - - - - -
ENDNOTE: The preceding thoughts are meant merely to introduce the concept of "fencing" as a political strategy which is related to yet distinct from framing.
I am still fleshing this analysis out, and the exercise of writing these thoughts down both helps me to clarify the fencing phenomenon, but also will surely expose some flaws or gaps in the approach.
I would welcome your comments and thoughts on whether this idea has utility, other recent examples of fencing, and how to put the awareness of this strategy to best use. Thanks for reading.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/10/233911/553
Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysisby Hudson Thu Mar 10th, 2005 at 20:39:11 PSTSUBTITLE:
Some limitations of Lakoff's "framing," and the evolving Republican strategy to fence voters off from Democratic ideas, leaders and values -- before the debate even begins
INTRODUCTION: BEYOND THE FRAME
In the past year, like so many other Democrats and progressives, I latched onto George Lakoff's advice about "framing" with the ferociously desperate optimism of a drowning man spotting a passing tree trunk.
I pre-ordered Don't Think of an Elephant, I googled a half-dozen Lakoff interviews, and I urged every liberal-minded friend to do the same.
Indeed, framing has become an unremitting refrain of every progressive op-ed piece, Haloscan post and DFA Meetup. Just mention framing, and heads bob appreciatively up and down across the (chat) room. "We must frame our arguments better!" is fast becoming a latter-day gloss on the naive proclamation of Boxer in Animal Farm ("I will work harder!") -- a pledge he makes right up to the minute the pigs ship him off to the glue factory. Diaries :: Hudson's diary ::
Despite the following criticisms, Lakoff's exhortation remains a welcome and commonsense one. To re-take control of the national discourse, Democrats of course must redefine the terms of debate in ways which predispose the audience to be more accepting of progressive arguments--all the while exhibiting the same or greater "message discipline" as our Republican nemeses.
As the 2004 campaign wore on, however, two things became apparent: (1) that John Kerry and other prominent Democrats were not showing much skill, charm or even discipline in these new framing efforts--which the Republicans had been practicing for a least a decade; (2) even more devastatingly, that just as Democrats began to try to master framing, the Republicans were one step ahead with a more powerful, and far more underhanded strategy.
For lack of a better term, I've started to call that more recent Republican strategy "fencing."
ANALYSIS: WHAT IS FENCING / WHAT IS A FENCE?
A fence is any political idea, campaign or mindset which is intended to wall voters off from the opposite side before the public even gets to hear the opposing argument.
In fairness to Lakoff, a fence may just be a kind of superframe: far cruder, far less permeable, and virtually insurmountable once erected. But if frames are a window to view the world through, then fences block much of that world out -- rendering the frames largely irrelevant.
A candidate or party doesn't get a chance to frame its issues if a metaphorical fence separates it from the audience. When the voters can't (or, more accurately, won't) see and hear our side of the debate, all those handy new frames become useless.
To better explain how Republicans are using fencing to trump the Democrats' newfound interest in framing, one first needs to take a brief look at the underpinnings of framing.
Framing starts with the assumption that there is going to be an actual debate about issues. As Democrats, we like to think that the public sincerely wants and deserves to hear at least two cases about various key issues (such as abortion, taxes, the environment, security) and then decide for ourselves which side made a more convincing argument.
Lakoff's insight was that in any debate, the side which spends more time crafting clever "frames" to define each of those issues has a major advantage. One of his oft-repeated examples is the right's clever invention (and endless repetition) of the phrase "climate change" in place of "global warming," to make that urgent and potentially devastating crisis seem more natural, just part of a gradual trend, rendering the public more apathetic.
Therein lies the problem with the Democrats' late adoption of framing: it assumes that people always want to hear from more than one side before taking a position.
This is where the increasingly common and infinitely more insidious Republican strategy of "fencing" comes in. As we Democrats play catch-up on the framing of specific issues, the Republicans (having largely mastered framing already) have refocused and redoubled their efforts to fence voters off from ever contemplating Democratic and progressive frames.
While still holding up their end when necessary to frame a debate, the Republicans are spending more and more of their time browbeating the public into blocking out our arguments altogether.
In the Bush-Kerry campaign, "fencing" mostly took the form of playground insults and other humiliations:
Kerry looks French. Kerry spends a fortune on haircuts. Kerry is vain and pompous. Kerry has funny hair. Kerry's voice is funny. Kerry reminds people of Lurch on The Addams family. Kerry wears Lycra--fluorescent-striped Lycra. Kerry rides a fancy European bike. Kerry looks fruity when he windsurfs. Kerry wears expensive suits, ties, sunglasses, shoes and belts. Kerry asks for French mustard when he orders a hot dog. Kerry falls when he skis, then blames it on the Secret Service. Kerry hung out with Hanoi Jane. Kerry threw his medals over a fence. Kerry faked his war wounds. Kerry only marries rich women. Kerry's latest wife is a rich, loudmouthed foreigner whom he can't control. Kerry is a phony. And of course, Kerry flip-flops.
Almost all of these jibes--which most sixth graders would be embarrassed to say--were also accompanied by photographs or video.
The goals of these juvenile but relentless attacks was obvious: To make Kerry into a ridiculous figure. To put the very idea of taking John Kerry seriously out of the realm of possibility. To make people dismiss Kerry's candidacy no matter how much sense he made. Don't listen to the French-looking phony. Whatever he says, it can only be an absurd lie, coming from such a pompous, traitorous, pampered Lurch-like gold digger.
Though you'd think that most Americans would resent such below-the-belt and immature jabs at a serious politician, the effect over time is to build an edifice of humiliation that does effectively fence a significant number voters off from the opponent. This further enabled the Bush campaign to focus narrowly on turnout and winning that slim margin among undecideds--while Kerry was still innocently trying to run a 1959-style campaign.
Like the trumped-up "Gore invented the Internet" line, these fencing efforts started at sites such as Drudge and on wingnut talk radio. These refrains were quickly picked up by late night comedians and Fox News; and eventually came home to roost in the legit media, as ostensibly liberal wits like Maureen Dowd simply couldn't resist joining in the junior high chorus of teases and taunts.
Fencing is increasingly used by Republicans very early in campaigns, both for public office and for specific initiatives, to brand the opponent as untouchable, so as to get as many voters as possible to don a blindfold -- voluntarily putting their fingers in their ears the minute a Democrats starts trying to framing an issue.
The Republican goal is to fence off voters from Democrats, so that only a small number of people need to be actually convinced via good old-fashioned logical persuasion, and to keep the party's base from ever straying off the reservation.
This allows Luntz, Rove & Co. to slice and dice the undecideds into even more bite-sized pieces who can be focus-grouped and sold the appropriate bill of goods--because they've already got close to a majority in their pocket. And it allows the Republican GOTV efforts that much more energized and targeted.
BACKLASH: WHEN FENCING GOES BAD
Like any political strategy, fencing is only as good as its implementation, and has to be tailored to each situation. The recent anti-Social Security campaign by USANext is shaping up as a textbook example of bad fencing--which due to its bullying nature can backfire far more explosively than a weak frame.
USANext's apparent hope was to fence the public off from the AARP. By trying to permanently tag that association with "anti-military"and "pro-gay" labels, it thought it could make voters ignore all the logical arguments (and also all the anxieties) that AARP could muster in defense of Social Security. The most obvious problems with USANext's approach were:
(A) the lack of an advance campaign to work up to the more outrageous charges, (B) the sheer clumsiness of its first round ads, (C) underestimating the credibility of its target and its ability to strike back, and (D) forgetting that nothing breeds aversion to change like a cashable check in one's mailbox every month; and lastly (E) the total implausibility of the allegations.
One could argue that the knocks against Kerry were equally ridiculous (French? Lerch? Lycra? Who cares?) ... and that these should have backfired, too. After all, how could this decorated combat veteran be turned into a phony sissy, while this Vietnam-dodging, costume-wearing former cheerleader is praised as a tough guy? It seems so improbable, in retrospect.
The differences between the successful Republican fencing of Kerry and the increasingly disastrous attempt to fence AARP were that with Kerry, the Republicans laid their groundwork, and had a vulnerable opponent. Against Kerry, they patiently engineered a slow escalation of personal attacks--and as it became clear that their target neither intended to retaliate, nor had a strong base of support to defend him, the attacks became more brazen -- culminating in the Swift Boat lunacy. If the Swift Boat ads had been run at the start of the campaign, they would have been laughed off the air. But by the time Rove launched this salvo, the public was all too ready to believe the charges, and had already begun to tune Kerry out.
Fencing helps explain why, despite appearing to demolish Bush in all three debates, Kerry still lost: by that time, there were not enough people still listening to gain ground.
CONCLUSION: CAN--OR SHOULD--DEMOCRATS FENCE, TOO?
So how do Democrats and Progressives counter these Republican's fencing strategies, and what does this mean for our party's nascent framing efforts?
I am not recommending that we totally abandon Lakoff's advice on framing. Rather, Democrats need to make sure that even as we become more adept and disciplined at framing specific issues, we haven't allowed ourselves to be hidden from the public behind a virtual fence that will keep us from being seen and heard at all.
Without stooping to the thoroughgoing unscrupulousness of our adversaries, we need to find opportunities (for example, with the current Social Security debate) to fence voters off from the right-wing for years to come. We should be saying at every opportunity: Bush doesn't respect the elderly. Cheney is lying again. Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. They want to give your savings to their Wall Street donors.And it could get harsher without straying from the truth: Republicans don't care if your grandmother is evicted or your grandfather has to eat cat food.
We need more than clever, soothing frames. We need to create solid, defensible fences of our own around this new Washington gang of so-called conservatives, who are more like quasi-fascists or Robber Barons. We need to be less shy, even as we continue to speak the truth -- which is adequately damning, so long as it's spoken plainly.
Our fences should be built not only from well-framed arguments, but also with powerfully accurate labels that stick permanently to the opposition. With the facts squarely on our side, it is possible to fence the Republicans based on reality, which is an insult enough to their Fox-y fantasy world.
The election of the outspoken Howard Dean as DNC chair is just one step in this direction for a party which needs to both play smarter and hit harder. We now need to turn the hubris of the current administration against itself, to relentlessy boost the number of voters who just won't believe anything Bush, Cheney or their successors say anymore.
And above all, to paraphrase both Pink Floyd and Gene Autry: We need to tear down the wall when anyone tries to fence us in.
- - - - - - - - - - -
ENDNOTE: The preceding thoughts are meant merely to introduce the concept of "fencing" as a political strategy which is related to yet distinct from framing.
I am still fleshing this analysis out, and the exercise of writing these thoughts down both helps me to clarify the fencing phenomenon, but also will surely expose some flaws or gaps in the approach.
I would welcome your comments and thoughts on whether this idea has utility, other recent examples of fencing, and how to put the awareness of this strategy to best use. Thanks for reading.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/10/233911/553
posted by stebaldos at 6:03 PM
0 comments
Friday, March 11, 2005
la posta in gioco tra pm e filosofo
la posta in gioco tra pm e filosofo
pirani - la rep
pirani - la rep
posted by stebaldos at 7:32 PM
0 comments
Tessile, la Ue pronta a misure contro Cina
Tessile, la Ue pronta a misure contro Cina
repubblica on line
repubblica on line
posted by stebaldos at 7:30 PM
0 comments
il decreto senza illusioni
giavazzi sulla competività
corriere
corriere
posted by stebaldos at 7:26 PM
0 comments
Thursday, March 10, 2005
professoree il cardinaledi
IL COMMENTOIl professoree il cardinaledi EDMONDO BERSELLI
posted by stebaldos at 2:28 PM
0 comments
calipari
IL COMMENTO Le due versioni del ministrodi GIUSEPPE D'AVANZO
IL COMMENTOIl trionfo dell'ambiguitàdi CURZIO MALTESE
IL COMMENTOIl trionfo dell'ambiguitàdi CURZIO MALTESE
posted by stebaldos at 2:22 PM
0 comments
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Saigon's Sharansky
Saigon's Sharansky
Will Vietnam be the next Iraq?
wsje
So it happens that a message reached me last weekend from within one of the world's most repressive states: Vietnam. Word came that the Sharansky of Saigon, democratic dissident Nguyen Dan Que, had been released from his latest stretch in Vietnam's prisons. Though Dr. Que, as he prefers to be called, is now dogged by state security agents around the clock and allowed no phone or computer of his own, he could arrange to be on the receiving end of a phone call.
Will Vietnam be the next Iraq?
wsje
So it happens that a message reached me last weekend from within one of the world's most repressive states: Vietnam. Word came that the Sharansky of Saigon, democratic dissident Nguyen Dan Que, had been released from his latest stretch in Vietnam's prisons. Though Dr. Que, as he prefers to be called, is now dogged by state security agents around the clock and allowed no phone or computer of his own, he could arrange to be on the receiving end of a phone call.
posted by stebaldos at 6:50 PM
0 comments
Cina: mano dura contro delinquenza
China prosecutes 1,595 state personnel on charges related to human rights abuses
people's daily
Cina: mano dura contro delinquenza
Nel 2004, 145.000 persone condannate a morte o pene severe (ANSA) - PECHINO, 9 MAR - L'anno scorso in Cina piu' di 145.000 persone sono state condannate a morte, all'ergastolo o a pene detentive superiori ai cinque anni. In Cina il numero delle condanne a morte e' un segreto di Stato e le organizzazioni umanitarie internazionali ritengono che non siano meno di 10.000 l'anno. Xiao Yang ha detto che nel 2004 i condannati per reati 'gravi' sono stati oltre 700.000, il 19% dei quali ha subito la condanna a morte, all'ergastolo o comunque a pene superiori ai 5 anni.
people's daily
Cina: mano dura contro delinquenza
Nel 2004, 145.000 persone condannate a morte o pene severe (ANSA) - PECHINO, 9 MAR - L'anno scorso in Cina piu' di 145.000 persone sono state condannate a morte, all'ergastolo o a pene detentive superiori ai cinque anni. In Cina il numero delle condanne a morte e' un segreto di Stato e le organizzazioni umanitarie internazionali ritengono che non siano meno di 10.000 l'anno. Xiao Yang ha detto che nel 2004 i condannati per reati 'gravi' sono stati oltre 700.000, il 19% dei quali ha subito la condanna a morte, all'ergastolo o comunque a pene superiori ai 5 anni.
posted by stebaldos at 5:29 PM
0 comments
nella classifica annuale Wef l'Italia precipita al 45° posto
Per il World Economic Forum pesano l'eccessiva burocraziae gli scarsissimi investimenti in nuove tecnologieIct, nella classifica annuale Wef l'Italia precipita al 45° posto Perse 17 posizioni dall'anno scorso. Unici campi di eccellenzal'uso dei telefonini e i siti delle amministrazioni pubbliche
la repubblica on line
la repubblica on line
posted by stebaldos at 4:32 PM
0 comments
We the People of Arab Ancestry in the United States’
Census Bureau Releases Report ‘We the People of Arab Ancestry in the United States’
3/8/2005 11:16:00 AM
To: National Desk
Contact: U.S. Census Bureau Public Information Office, 301-763-3030
WASHINGTON, March 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The U.S. Census Bureau today released the following notification of the report, "We the People of Arab Ancestry in the United States":
We the People of Arab Ancestry in the United States (CENSR-21) -- Part of a series of Census 2000 special reports, presenting data on demographic, social and economic characteristics of the Arab population as a whole, as well as of the largest groups within this population at the national level. Internet address: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-21.pdf.
No news release associate with this product. Tip Sheet only.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
3/8/2005 11:16:00 AM
To: National Desk
Contact: U.S. Census Bureau Public Information Office, 301-763-3030
WASHINGTON, March 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The U.S. Census Bureau today released the following notification of the report, "We the People of Arab Ancestry in the United States":
We the People of Arab Ancestry in the United States (CENSR-21) -- Part of a series of Census 2000 special reports, presenting data on demographic, social and economic characteristics of the Arab population as a whole, as well as of the largest groups within this population at the national level. Internet address: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-21.pdf.
No news release associate with this product. Tip Sheet only.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
posted by stebaldos at 4:28 PM
0 comments
Sgrena: Wsje, riscatto cosa grave
Sgrena: Wsje, riscatto cosa grave
Pagare equivale ad aiutare deliberatamente terroristi (ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 9 MAR - L'aspetto piu' 'sconsiderato' della vicenda Sgrena non e' la sparatoria, ma il fatto che l'Italia abbia pagato un riscatto. Lo afferma un editoriale dell'edizione europea del Wall Street Journal (Wsje), in sui si invita la Sgrena a 'versare qualche lacrima anche per chi morira' a causa del riscatto'. 'Sparare contro un'auto a tutta velocita' in zona militare e' un tragico incidente, ma pagare un riscatto equivale a mettere in atto una politica di aiuto deliberato ai terroristi'.
Pagare equivale ad aiutare deliberatamente terroristi (ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 9 MAR - L'aspetto piu' 'sconsiderato' della vicenda Sgrena non e' la sparatoria, ma il fatto che l'Italia abbia pagato un riscatto. Lo afferma un editoriale dell'edizione europea del Wall Street Journal (Wsje), in sui si invita la Sgrena a 'versare qualche lacrima anche per chi morira' a causa del riscatto'. 'Sparare contro un'auto a tutta velocita' in zona militare e' un tragico incidente, ma pagare un riscatto equivale a mettere in atto una politica di aiuto deliberato ai terroristi'.
posted by stebaldos at 3:39 PM
0 comments
calipari, sulle regole d'ingaggio
il new York Times e le regole d'ingaggio
8 marzo 2005
8 marzo 2005
posted by stebaldos at 3:12 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
brasile: GRAVIDANZA PRECOCE PRINCIPALE CAUSA ABBANDONO SCOLASTICO
Misna
BRAZIL 8/3/2005 8:41
DONNE E SUD DEL MONDO: GRAVIDANZA PRECOCE PRINCIPALE CAUSA ABBANDONO SCOLASTICOLa gravidanza precoce, soprattutto delle ragazze d’età compresa tra 15 e 17 anni, è la causa dell’abbandono scolastico di almeno il 25% delle adolescenti e giovani brasiliane oltre a essere la terza causa assoluta di morte. Lo si apprende da uno studio del ministero della Salute brasiliana (denominato ‘Salute Brasile 2005’) e da altri due rapporti (dal titolo rispettivamente ‘Gioventù brasiliana’ e ‘Gioventù e sessualità’) dell’Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per l’educazione, la scienza e la cultura (Unesco), di cui la stampa nazionale brasiliana dà oggi notizia con ampio risalto. Secondo questi studi, la precoce maternità e i problemi di sussistenza che comporta sono una delle principali cause dell’abbandono scolastico e, di conseguenza, della povertà delle giovani 15-17enni, sebbene esista tutta una casistica legata a madri bambine o adolescenti (10-14 anni), che ogni anno danno alla luce decine di migliaia di bambini (82.834 quelli censiti tra il 2001 e il 2003). Sempre la maternità precoce è la terza causa di morte per le ragazze tra 15 e 17 anni, dopo gli omicidi e gli incidenti stradali. La gioventù maggiormente provata dal fenomeno delle maternità precoci è quella appartenente agli strati più poveri della popolazione. Secondo le statistiche dell’Unesco, il 31% di queste ragazze risiede nella poverissima regione nord-orientale mentre, in termini più generali, il 71% vive nelle regioni interne. Nel periodo tra il 2001 e il 2003 le ragazze tra i 15 e i 19 anni hanno partorito circa due milioni di bambini, molti dei quali condannati a una vita di stenti.[LL]
BRAZIL 8/3/2005 8:41
DONNE E SUD DEL MONDO: GRAVIDANZA PRECOCE PRINCIPALE CAUSA ABBANDONO SCOLASTICOLa gravidanza precoce, soprattutto delle ragazze d’età compresa tra 15 e 17 anni, è la causa dell’abbandono scolastico di almeno il 25% delle adolescenti e giovani brasiliane oltre a essere la terza causa assoluta di morte. Lo si apprende da uno studio del ministero della Salute brasiliana (denominato ‘Salute Brasile 2005’) e da altri due rapporti (dal titolo rispettivamente ‘Gioventù brasiliana’ e ‘Gioventù e sessualità’) dell’Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per l’educazione, la scienza e la cultura (Unesco), di cui la stampa nazionale brasiliana dà oggi notizia con ampio risalto. Secondo questi studi, la precoce maternità e i problemi di sussistenza che comporta sono una delle principali cause dell’abbandono scolastico e, di conseguenza, della povertà delle giovani 15-17enni, sebbene esista tutta una casistica legata a madri bambine o adolescenti (10-14 anni), che ogni anno danno alla luce decine di migliaia di bambini (82.834 quelli censiti tra il 2001 e il 2003). Sempre la maternità precoce è la terza causa di morte per le ragazze tra 15 e 17 anni, dopo gli omicidi e gli incidenti stradali. La gioventù maggiormente provata dal fenomeno delle maternità precoci è quella appartenente agli strati più poveri della popolazione. Secondo le statistiche dell’Unesco, il 31% di queste ragazze risiede nella poverissima regione nord-orientale mentre, in termini più generali, il 71% vive nelle regioni interne. Nel periodo tra il 2001 e il 2003 le ragazze tra i 15 e i 19 anni hanno partorito circa due milioni di bambini, molti dei quali condannati a una vita di stenti.[LL]
posted by stebaldos at 5:13 PM
0 comments
China. Gov't work report to bring people benefits in 6 areas
China. Gov't work report to bring people benefits in 6 areas
china's daily
(domenica bel pezzo del Sole)
CHINA 8/3/2005 1:22 ALL’OMBRA DELLO SVILUPPO ECONOMICO CRESCE IL FENOMENO DEI ‘RAGAZZI DI STRADA’ General, Brief Sono almeno 150.000 i ‘ragazzi di strada’ nella Repubblica popolare cinese; un fenomeno relativamente recente, quello dei minorenni senza fissa dimora, che la Cina ha visto crescere sensibilmente nell’ultimo decennio. I dati sono stati diffusi dal ministero degli Affari civili, che ha annunciato l’intenzione del governo di elaborare una legge ad hoc. Il problema riguarda in particolare tanti bambini e adolescenti originari delle aree rurali più povere che fuggono dal disagio familiare cercando una nuova vita nelle strade dei centri urbani. Secondo il rappresentante dell’Unicef in Cina, Christian Frederic Voumard, citato dall’agenzia nazionale ‘Xinhua’, il crescente numero di minorenni che scappano da casa e vivono per la strada è anche una conseguenza dell’impatto negativo che uno sviluppo economico troppo accelerato può avere sul tessuto sociale. "Molte persone hanno certamente beneficiato delle riforme economiche e sociali in Cina – ha detto Voumard – ma i costi umani di una così rapida trasformazione possono essere molto alti. Tra questi la maggiore pressione sugli individui e i nuclei familiari, la difficile situazione dei migranti interni, la destabilizzazione delle famiglie e il crescente divario tra ricchi e poveri". La nuova normativa dovrebbe rafforzare un sistema di assistenza e accoglienza dei ‘ragazzi di strada’. Il ministero ha reso noto che dal 1995 al 2003 sono stati allestiti nelle principali città 130 centri di accoglienza per minori soli, ospitando 10.000 giovani.[BF]
china's daily
(domenica bel pezzo del Sole)
CHINA 8/3/2005 1:22 ALL’OMBRA DELLO SVILUPPO ECONOMICO CRESCE IL FENOMENO DEI ‘RAGAZZI DI STRADA’ General, Brief Sono almeno 150.000 i ‘ragazzi di strada’ nella Repubblica popolare cinese; un fenomeno relativamente recente, quello dei minorenni senza fissa dimora, che la Cina ha visto crescere sensibilmente nell’ultimo decennio. I dati sono stati diffusi dal ministero degli Affari civili, che ha annunciato l’intenzione del governo di elaborare una legge ad hoc. Il problema riguarda in particolare tanti bambini e adolescenti originari delle aree rurali più povere che fuggono dal disagio familiare cercando una nuova vita nelle strade dei centri urbani. Secondo il rappresentante dell’Unicef in Cina, Christian Frederic Voumard, citato dall’agenzia nazionale ‘Xinhua’, il crescente numero di minorenni che scappano da casa e vivono per la strada è anche una conseguenza dell’impatto negativo che uno sviluppo economico troppo accelerato può avere sul tessuto sociale. "Molte persone hanno certamente beneficiato delle riforme economiche e sociali in Cina – ha detto Voumard – ma i costi umani di una così rapida trasformazione possono essere molto alti. Tra questi la maggiore pressione sugli individui e i nuclei familiari, la difficile situazione dei migranti interni, la destabilizzazione delle famiglie e il crescente divario tra ricchi e poveri". La nuova normativa dovrebbe rafforzare un sistema di assistenza e accoglienza dei ‘ragazzi di strada’. Il ministero ha reso noto che dal 1995 al 2003 sono stati allestiti nelle principali città 130 centri di accoglienza per minori soli, ospitando 10.000 giovani.[BF]
posted by stebaldos at 4:51 PM
0 comments
Report by House Democrats Alleges GOP Abuse of Power
Report by House Democrats Alleges GOP Abuse of Power
By Mike AllenWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, March 8, 2005; Page A13
Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and other revolutionaries used accusations of arrogant and heavy-handed tactics to stir a populist revolt against 40 years of Democratic domination of Congress before the GOP takeover of 1994.
Now, after 10 years of Republican control, House Democrats are making strikingly similar charges against today's Republicans.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) plans to lash out at the chamber's Republican leaders today with a report accusing them of abusing their power through parliamentary tactics designed to suppress dissent.
The report contends that rules governing major legislation "severely restrict or sometimes even totally block the minority's ability to debate or amend bills." It charges that Republicans on the Rules Committee have intentionally "used emergency meeting procedures and late-night meetings . . . to discourage Members and the press from participating in the legislative process."
Pelosi, a liberal who has few weapons besides rhetoric to use against the conservatives who control Congress, described the forthcoming report as documenting "devastating details of the profound abuse of power that characterizes House Republicans after 10 years in the majority."
"While this Republican administration has spoken strongly about promoting democracy around the world, the House Republican leadership is working feverishly to undermine democracy here at home," she said in a statement to be released with the report.
Pelosi said the leaders "ram bills through committees without full discussion, permit few if any floor amendments, and if need be, hold open floor votes until enough arms have been twisted to ensure passage." In November 2003, the House leadership kept a roll call going for two hours and 51 minutes -- more than double the previous record -- until they could round up enough votes to pass President Bush's Medicare revision and prescription drug bill.
Republicans replied that Democrats just want to slow down the process and that the opposition has procedural guarantees that were routinely denied to the GOP when it was in the minority. For instance, House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) has a policy that when a bill will not be available until after 10 p.m., a committee meeting is held early the next morning rather than late that night, aides pointed out.
The 147-page report, by the Democratic staff of the House Rules Committee, is called "Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy" and is described on the cover as "A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic Process in the 108th Congress," which ended at noon on Jan. 3.
"In the 108th Congress, House Republicans became the most arrogant, unethical and corrupt majority in modern Congressional history," the report begins. "When they took control of the House after the 1994 elections, Republicans vowed they would be different than previous Congresses."
The report goes on to say that "what sets the 108th Congress apart from its predecessors is that stifling deliberation and quashing dissent in the House of Representatives became the standard operating procedure."
Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, said that the method by which Republicans run the House and their procedures "are moral decisions."
"Over the past two years, the Republican leadership ignored House Rules and the basic standards of legislative fairness and decency with an impunity that is unprecedented in the history of the House of Representatives," she said in a statement.
The report notes that Gingrich said during a January seminar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that the House leadership's tight rein on House proceedings is an "enormous strategic mistake."
The report calls for Republicans to "open up the process by allowing debate and votes on more serious amendments" and give members at least three days to read reports from conference committees.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
By Mike AllenWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, March 8, 2005; Page A13
Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and other revolutionaries used accusations of arrogant and heavy-handed tactics to stir a populist revolt against 40 years of Democratic domination of Congress before the GOP takeover of 1994.
Now, after 10 years of Republican control, House Democrats are making strikingly similar charges against today's Republicans.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) plans to lash out at the chamber's Republican leaders today with a report accusing them of abusing their power through parliamentary tactics designed to suppress dissent.
The report contends that rules governing major legislation "severely restrict or sometimes even totally block the minority's ability to debate or amend bills." It charges that Republicans on the Rules Committee have intentionally "used emergency meeting procedures and late-night meetings . . . to discourage Members and the press from participating in the legislative process."
Pelosi, a liberal who has few weapons besides rhetoric to use against the conservatives who control Congress, described the forthcoming report as documenting "devastating details of the profound abuse of power that characterizes House Republicans after 10 years in the majority."
"While this Republican administration has spoken strongly about promoting democracy around the world, the House Republican leadership is working feverishly to undermine democracy here at home," she said in a statement to be released with the report.
Pelosi said the leaders "ram bills through committees without full discussion, permit few if any floor amendments, and if need be, hold open floor votes until enough arms have been twisted to ensure passage." In November 2003, the House leadership kept a roll call going for two hours and 51 minutes -- more than double the previous record -- until they could round up enough votes to pass President Bush's Medicare revision and prescription drug bill.
Republicans replied that Democrats just want to slow down the process and that the opposition has procedural guarantees that were routinely denied to the GOP when it was in the minority. For instance, House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) has a policy that when a bill will not be available until after 10 p.m., a committee meeting is held early the next morning rather than late that night, aides pointed out.
The 147-page report, by the Democratic staff of the House Rules Committee, is called "Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy" and is described on the cover as "A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic Process in the 108th Congress," which ended at noon on Jan. 3.
"In the 108th Congress, House Republicans became the most arrogant, unethical and corrupt majority in modern Congressional history," the report begins. "When they took control of the House after the 1994 elections, Republicans vowed they would be different than previous Congresses."
The report goes on to say that "what sets the 108th Congress apart from its predecessors is that stifling deliberation and quashing dissent in the House of Representatives became the standard operating procedure."
Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, said that the method by which Republicans run the House and their procedures "are moral decisions."
"Over the past two years, the Republican leadership ignored House Rules and the basic standards of legislative fairness and decency with an impunity that is unprecedented in the history of the House of Representatives," she said in a statement.
The report notes that Gingrich said during a January seminar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that the House leadership's tight rein on House proceedings is an "enormous strategic mistake."
The report calls for Republicans to "open up the process by allowing debate and votes on more serious amendments" and give members at least three days to read reports from conference committees.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
posted by stebaldos at 4:43 PM
0 comments
La violenza sessuale in Darfur
Giornata Mondiale della Donna. La violenza sessuale in Darfur. Un rapporto di MSF.
http://www.msf.it/msfinforma/comunicati_stampa/07032005.shtml
http://www.msf.it/msfinforma/comunicati_stampa/07032005.shtml
posted by stebaldos at 3:01 PM
0 comments
Medicaid Fails to Check Drug Pricing -Report
Medicaid Fails to Check Drug Pricing -Report
reuters
reuters
posted by stebaldos at 12:11 PM
0 comments
Monday, March 07, 2005
Terrorismo: Usa; da Casa bianca ampi poteri interrogatori Cia
6 marzo 2005 21.16
Terrorismo: Usa; da Casa bianca ampi poteri interrogatori Cia
NEW YORK - Il presidente americano George W. Bush ha dato ampi poteri alla Cia dopo l'11 settembre 2001, in una direttiva ancora coperta dal segreto, sulla gestione di presunti terroristi trasferiti in paesi stranieri per essere interrogati. Lo riporta il New York Times, offrendo nuovi particolari su una prassi di cui è trapelata da tempo l'esistenza.La Cia, secondo il quotidiano, può ora operare senza bisogno di una revisione caso per caso da parte della Casa Bianca e può trasferire i detenuti nei paesi che ritiene più adeguati, compresi quelli per i quali esistono accuse di tortura da parte delle organizzazioni per i diritti civili.Il consigliere della Casa Bianca Dan Bartlett, senza entrare nel merito della direttiva di Bush, ha difeso l'operato dell'amministrazione e le scelte fatte dopo l'11 settembre. "Parte delle iniziative - ha detto Bartlett alla Cnn - riguardano il fare i conti con noti terroristi che possono avere informazioni riguardo operazioni in corso ed è vitale che siamo in grado di tenerli in custodia e avere quelle informazioni".
Terrorismo: Usa; da Casa bianca ampi poteri interrogatori Cia
NEW YORK - Il presidente americano George W. Bush ha dato ampi poteri alla Cia dopo l'11 settembre 2001, in una direttiva ancora coperta dal segreto, sulla gestione di presunti terroristi trasferiti in paesi stranieri per essere interrogati. Lo riporta il New York Times, offrendo nuovi particolari su una prassi di cui è trapelata da tempo l'esistenza.La Cia, secondo il quotidiano, può ora operare senza bisogno di una revisione caso per caso da parte della Casa Bianca e può trasferire i detenuti nei paesi che ritiene più adeguati, compresi quelli per i quali esistono accuse di tortura da parte delle organizzazioni per i diritti civili.Il consigliere della Casa Bianca Dan Bartlett, senza entrare nel merito della direttiva di Bush, ha difeso l'operato dell'amministrazione e le scelte fatte dopo l'11 settembre. "Parte delle iniziative - ha detto Bartlett alla Cnn - riguardano il fare i conti con noti terroristi che possono avere informazioni riguardo operazioni in corso ed è vitale che siamo in grado di tenerli in custodia e avere quelle informazioni".
posted by stebaldos at 7:22 PM
0 comments
Report: Israel Jails 310 Palestinain Children
Report: Israel Jails 310 Palestinain Children
GAZA, Palestine, March7, 2005 (IPC)-The Israeli occupation authorities continue to hold 310 Palestinian children in various prisons, jails and concentration camps, a report issued Sunday by the Palestinian Prisoners Ministry revealed
GAZA, Palestine, March7, 2005 (IPC)-The Israeli occupation authorities continue to hold 310 Palestinian children in various prisons, jails and concentration camps, a report issued Sunday by the Palestinian Prisoners Ministry revealed
posted by stebaldos at 7:21 PM
0 comments
more using web for political news
The Associated Press/NEW YORK
By ANICK JESDANUNAP Internet Writer
Study: More using Web for political news
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/150/report_display.asp
By ANICK JESDANUNAP Internet Writer
Study: More using Web for political news
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/150/report_display.asp
posted by stebaldos at 7:19 PM
0 comments
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Povertà in aumento fra i bambini dei paesi ricchi
Povertà in aumento fra i bambini dei paesi ricchi
Stefano Baldolini
su Europa di oggi
Contro ogni percezione comune, "la percentuale di bambini che vivono in condizioni di povertà è aumentata, dagli inizi degli anni Novanta, in 17 Paesi ricchi su 24". Lo afferma il rapporto Unicef, “Povertà infantile nei paesi ricchi, 2005”. All'Italia, con il 16,6% di bambini al di sotto della soglia nazionale di povertà, spetta il triste primato del ''più alto tasso in Europa''. Solo gli Usa e il Messico, dove le percentuali superano il 20%, presentano dati inferiori al nostro, mentre i Paesi nordici i registrano i risultati migliori.
"Anche se si ritiene comunemente che nei Paesi industrializzati la povertà infantile sia in costante diminuzione", il rapporto mostra come "soltanto in quattro Paesi (Australia, Norvegia, Gran Bretagna e Usa, ndr) c'è stato un significativo decremento a partire dagli inizi dei '90".
La stima di 40-50 milioni di bambini poveri dei paesi membri dell'Ocse costituisce un contributo significativo allo “tsunami globale” paventato dall’Agenzia dell’Onu in occasione di un altro recente rapporto, quello sullo “stato dell’infanzia nel mondo”.
Il Record Card Innocenti, presentato ieri a Ginevra, intende lanciare una “sfida ai governi”. Non prima però di aver stabilito la materia del contendere. Alla domanda chiave “Che cosa significa povertà?” il rapporto del centro di ricerca fiorentino dell’Unicef risponde fissando la “soglia mobile” adottata dalla maggioranza dei paesi Ocse. In poche parole "un bambino deve essere considerato povero se il reddito disponibile per lui è inferiore alla metà del reddito mediano disponibile per i bambini di quella società".
Una volta sgombrato il campo da possibili interpretazioni - "indipendentemente da quale dei parametri comunemente usati per misurare la povertà si applichi, la situazione dei bambini risulta essere peggiorata negli ultimi dieci anni" - si passa all’analisi delle responsabilità.
"La differenza tra le politiche adottate dai governi sembra essere responsabile della maggiore parte delle differenze nei livelli di povertà infantile registrate", afferma il rapporto.
I governi hanno "la capacità di spingere verso il basso i tassi della povertà infantile." Per esempio, lo studio mostra che "ad un aumento della spesa pubblica a sostegno delle famiglie e delle prestazioni sociali corrispondono chiaramente minori tassi di povertà dei bambini." E’ il caso di Danimarca, Svezia, Finlandia e Belgio, dove i tassi della povertà infantile sono inferiori al 10%, e almeno il 10% cento del Pil è destinato alla spesa sociale per la riduzione della povertà infantile. "In media, gli interventi dello Stato riducono del 40 per cento il tasso della povertà infantile che invece verrebbe prodotto dall'azione delle forze del mercato se queste fossero lasciate a se stesse."
Ma d’altra parte, il rapporto rileva anche l’esistenza di notevoli divergenze tra i tassi di diversi paesi con livelli di spesa pubblica simili. "I tassi di povertà non dipendono solo dal livello quantitativo del sostegno pubblico, ma anche dal modo in cui questo è dispensato; molti paesi dell’OCSE sembrano avere la potenzialità di portare la povertà infantile al di sotto del 10 per cento senza peraltro aumentare in misura significativa la spesa generale."
Così se la difficoltà di stabilire dei criteri generali d’intervento pare connaturata al fenomeno stesso - "i livelli di povertà di un paese sono il prodotto di un'interazione complessa e talvolta difficile da prevedere tra politiche pubbliche, sforzi delle famiglie, condizioni del mercato del lavoro, e le più vaste forze dei mutamenti sociali" - il rapporto mette in guardia rispetto alle tendenze predominanti.
"In alcuni paesi il risultato finale delle attuali politiche può essere quello di favorire il pensionamento precoce a scapito degli investimenti per l'infanzia." Nel mirino, Grecia, Irlanda, Italia, Portogallo e Spagna, che oltre a dedicare "una minore proporzione della spesa pubblica ai trasferimenti sociali in generale" concentrano le risorse pubbliche destinate alla popolazione a basso reddito "sulle fasce di età al di sopra dei 50 anni."
Ricordando come "la riduzione della povertà infantile è una misura del progresso verso la coesione sociale, l'uguaglianza di opportunità", l'Unicef prova a fissare le prossime scadenze. "Un obiettivo realistico sarebbe quello di condurre il tasso di povertà infantile al di sotto del 10 %." Mentre per i paesi che già hanno raggiunto questo livello, "il prossimo traguardo potrebbe essere quello di emulare i paesi nordici facendo scendere il tasso al di sotto del 5%."
il rapporto
anais ginori sulla repubblica
Stefano Baldolini
su Europa di oggi
Contro ogni percezione comune, "la percentuale di bambini che vivono in condizioni di povertà è aumentata, dagli inizi degli anni Novanta, in 17 Paesi ricchi su 24". Lo afferma il rapporto Unicef, “Povertà infantile nei paesi ricchi, 2005”. All'Italia, con il 16,6% di bambini al di sotto della soglia nazionale di povertà, spetta il triste primato del ''più alto tasso in Europa''. Solo gli Usa e il Messico, dove le percentuali superano il 20%, presentano dati inferiori al nostro, mentre i Paesi nordici i registrano i risultati migliori.
"Anche se si ritiene comunemente che nei Paesi industrializzati la povertà infantile sia in costante diminuzione", il rapporto mostra come "soltanto in quattro Paesi (Australia, Norvegia, Gran Bretagna e Usa, ndr) c'è stato un significativo decremento a partire dagli inizi dei '90".
La stima di 40-50 milioni di bambini poveri dei paesi membri dell'Ocse costituisce un contributo significativo allo “tsunami globale” paventato dall’Agenzia dell’Onu in occasione di un altro recente rapporto, quello sullo “stato dell’infanzia nel mondo”.
Il Record Card Innocenti, presentato ieri a Ginevra, intende lanciare una “sfida ai governi”. Non prima però di aver stabilito la materia del contendere. Alla domanda chiave “Che cosa significa povertà?” il rapporto del centro di ricerca fiorentino dell’Unicef risponde fissando la “soglia mobile” adottata dalla maggioranza dei paesi Ocse. In poche parole "un bambino deve essere considerato povero se il reddito disponibile per lui è inferiore alla metà del reddito mediano disponibile per i bambini di quella società".
Una volta sgombrato il campo da possibili interpretazioni - "indipendentemente da quale dei parametri comunemente usati per misurare la povertà si applichi, la situazione dei bambini risulta essere peggiorata negli ultimi dieci anni" - si passa all’analisi delle responsabilità.
"La differenza tra le politiche adottate dai governi sembra essere responsabile della maggiore parte delle differenze nei livelli di povertà infantile registrate", afferma il rapporto.
I governi hanno "la capacità di spingere verso il basso i tassi della povertà infantile." Per esempio, lo studio mostra che "ad un aumento della spesa pubblica a sostegno delle famiglie e delle prestazioni sociali corrispondono chiaramente minori tassi di povertà dei bambini." E’ il caso di Danimarca, Svezia, Finlandia e Belgio, dove i tassi della povertà infantile sono inferiori al 10%, e almeno il 10% cento del Pil è destinato alla spesa sociale per la riduzione della povertà infantile. "In media, gli interventi dello Stato riducono del 40 per cento il tasso della povertà infantile che invece verrebbe prodotto dall'azione delle forze del mercato se queste fossero lasciate a se stesse."
Ma d’altra parte, il rapporto rileva anche l’esistenza di notevoli divergenze tra i tassi di diversi paesi con livelli di spesa pubblica simili. "I tassi di povertà non dipendono solo dal livello quantitativo del sostegno pubblico, ma anche dal modo in cui questo è dispensato; molti paesi dell’OCSE sembrano avere la potenzialità di portare la povertà infantile al di sotto del 10 per cento senza peraltro aumentare in misura significativa la spesa generale."
Così se la difficoltà di stabilire dei criteri generali d’intervento pare connaturata al fenomeno stesso - "i livelli di povertà di un paese sono il prodotto di un'interazione complessa e talvolta difficile da prevedere tra politiche pubbliche, sforzi delle famiglie, condizioni del mercato del lavoro, e le più vaste forze dei mutamenti sociali" - il rapporto mette in guardia rispetto alle tendenze predominanti.
"In alcuni paesi il risultato finale delle attuali politiche può essere quello di favorire il pensionamento precoce a scapito degli investimenti per l'infanzia." Nel mirino, Grecia, Irlanda, Italia, Portogallo e Spagna, che oltre a dedicare "una minore proporzione della spesa pubblica ai trasferimenti sociali in generale" concentrano le risorse pubbliche destinate alla popolazione a basso reddito "sulle fasce di età al di sopra dei 50 anni."
Ricordando come "la riduzione della povertà infantile è una misura del progresso verso la coesione sociale, l'uguaglianza di opportunità", l'Unicef prova a fissare le prossime scadenze. "Un obiettivo realistico sarebbe quello di condurre il tasso di povertà infantile al di sotto del 10 %." Mentre per i paesi che già hanno raggiunto questo livello, "il prossimo traguardo potrebbe essere quello di emulare i paesi nordici facendo scendere il tasso al di sotto del 5%."
il rapporto
anais ginori sulla repubblica
posted by stebaldos at 5:10 PM
0 comments
The Court and Religion
March 2, 2005EDITORIALS
The Court and Religion
utting up displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings has become a popular way to test the limits of the First Amendment. The displays' backers, who will argue their case before the Supreme Court today, say they are not challenging the separation of church and state, just acknowledging God's authority in a way the founding fathers would have appreciated. They're wrong, and the court should order the displays removed.
The cases involve Texas, where there has been a six-foot-tall Ten Commandments monument between the Capitol and the State Supreme Court since 1961, and Kentucky, where McCreary and Pulaski Counties posted the Ten Commandments in their county courthouses in 1999. In both cases, the backers of the Ten Commandments' displays are arguing that any religious message they may send is diluted by their surroundings. After the American Civil Liberties Union sued, the Kentucky counties also posted other documents, like the Declaration of Independence and the lyrics of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Texas argues that secular monuments are also on the Capitol grounds. But those monuments are all a significant distance away from the Ten Commandments monument, which is topped by the phrase "I am the Lord thy God" in large letters.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion," and the Supreme Court has long held that the same rule must be applied to the states. The Ten Commandments represent specifically Judeo-Christian beliefs. Even within the Judeo-Christian tradition, there are significantly different versions of the commandments. Kentucky and Texas have chosen to display the Protestant Ten Commandments, rather than the Catholic or Jewish versions.
Accepting the separation of church and state does not mean that all references to religion must be excised from public life. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the government can display a religious symbol, provided it is part of a clearly secular display. The courtroom in which the Ten Commandments case will be argued has an image of Moses' accepting the tablets as part of a montage of lawgivers throughout history. But the Kentucky and Texas displays fall far short of that standard.
Adding the national anthem to the Kentucky displays or pointing to other statues in the distance in Texas cannot undo the displays' clear motivation: tying the legal system to Protestantism. The wall between church and state dates proudly to the earliest days of the republic. The founders may not have anticipated a country with many Hindu and Buddhist Americans, but they were wise enough to write a document that protects their rights. Our increasingly diverse nation must not appear to prefer some religions, and some citizens, over others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/opinion/02wed1.html?th
The Court and Religion
utting up displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings has become a popular way to test the limits of the First Amendment. The displays' backers, who will argue their case before the Supreme Court today, say they are not challenging the separation of church and state, just acknowledging God's authority in a way the founding fathers would have appreciated. They're wrong, and the court should order the displays removed.
The cases involve Texas, where there has been a six-foot-tall Ten Commandments monument between the Capitol and the State Supreme Court since 1961, and Kentucky, where McCreary and Pulaski Counties posted the Ten Commandments in their county courthouses in 1999. In both cases, the backers of the Ten Commandments' displays are arguing that any religious message they may send is diluted by their surroundings. After the American Civil Liberties Union sued, the Kentucky counties also posted other documents, like the Declaration of Independence and the lyrics of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Texas argues that secular monuments are also on the Capitol grounds. But those monuments are all a significant distance away from the Ten Commandments monument, which is topped by the phrase "I am the Lord thy God" in large letters.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion," and the Supreme Court has long held that the same rule must be applied to the states. The Ten Commandments represent specifically Judeo-Christian beliefs. Even within the Judeo-Christian tradition, there are significantly different versions of the commandments. Kentucky and Texas have chosen to display the Protestant Ten Commandments, rather than the Catholic or Jewish versions.
Accepting the separation of church and state does not mean that all references to religion must be excised from public life. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the government can display a religious symbol, provided it is part of a clearly secular display. The courtroom in which the Ten Commandments case will be argued has an image of Moses' accepting the tablets as part of a montage of lawgivers throughout history. But the Kentucky and Texas displays fall far short of that standard.
Adding the national anthem to the Kentucky displays or pointing to other statues in the distance in Texas cannot undo the displays' clear motivation: tying the legal system to Protestantism. The wall between church and state dates proudly to the earliest days of the republic. The founders may not have anticipated a country with many Hindu and Buddhist Americans, but they were wise enough to write a document that protects their rights. Our increasingly diverse nation must not appear to prefer some religions, and some citizens, over others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/opinion/02wed1.html?th
posted by stebaldos at 4:36 PM
0 comments
Digital Rx: Take Two Aspirins and E-Mail Me in the Morning
March 2, 2005
Digital Rx: Take Two Aspirins and E-Mail Me in the Morning
By MILT FREUDENHEIM
Doctors may no longer make house calls, but they are answering patient e-mail messages - and being paid for it.
In a move to improve efficiency and control costs, health plans and medical groups around the country are now beginning to pay doctors to reply by e-mail, just as they pay for office visits. While some computer-literate doctors have been using e-mail to communicate informally with patients for years, most have never been paid for that service.
Brian Settlemoir, 39, an accountant in Folsom, Calif., recently sent an e-mail message to his doctor at the Creekside Medical Group to ask if it was time to reduce the dosage of a medicine after his cholesterol level dropped. The prompt answer was "not yet."
"I'm sitting at work," Mr. Settlemoir said. "I've got e-mail open anyway. It's much easier than calling and getting voice-mail prompts and sitting on hold. It's very valuable to me."
Blue Shield of California pays his doctor $25 for each online exchange, the same as it pays for an office visit. Some insurers pay a bit less for e-mailing, and patients in some health plans are charged a $5 or $10 co-payment that is billed to their credit card and relayed to the doctor.
For doctors, the convenience of online exchanges can be considerable. They say they can offer advice about postsurgical care, diet, changing a medication and other topics that can be handled safely and promptly without an office visit or a frustrating round of telephone tag. And surveys have shown that e-mail, by reducing the number of daily office visits, gives physicians more time to spend with patients who need to be seen face to face.
For patients, e-mail allows them to send their medical questions from home in the evening, without missing work and spending time in a doctor's waiting room. In fact, many say exchanges in the more relaxed, conversational realm of e-mail make them feel closer to their doctors.
The patients can also use the e-mail connections, which they reach through secure Web sites, to get X-ray and test results and request prescription renewals. Doctors are not paid for these services, except in time saved in the office.
This shift toward online doctor-patient communication is important for another reason. Physicians and health care technology specialists say they believe that it could help spur the changeover to electronic health care information systems, which government officials and industry leaders say is needed to reduce medical errors and promote better care. Doctors at the clinics of the University of California, Davis, grew accustomed to using e-mail for clinical purposes before the clinics introduced electronic medical records, said Dr. Eric Liederman, medical director of clinical information systems at Davis. The messaging "gave them some comfort and facility with using the computer," he said.
Early research at clinics at the university found that using e-mail improved the productivity of physicians, decreased overhead costs and improved access to doctors for patients, including those who still telephoned. "There was a huge reduction in the number of calls," said Dr. Liederman, who is a big fan of e-mail exchanges.
Doctors and insurers say online consultations can be especially useful for patients who have chronic conditions like diabetes, asthma and heart problems. They have been frequent users and being in touch can help them to comply with regimens to cope with their diseases.
"Patients love this stuff; I love this stuff; the staff loves this stuff," said Dr. Barbara Walters, a senior medical director at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire.
One benefit of online messaging - perhaps because it can be done in a setting less harried than a doctor's office - is that it gives patients a greater degree of control.
"The intelligence of our patients never ceases to amaze me," Dr. Walters said. "Patients can describe what's going on with them, if given the chance and given the time." Since last year, several health plans - Anthem Blue Cross, Cigna and Harvard Pilgrim - have been paying Dartmouth-Hitchcock $30 for each online "visit," Dr. Walters said. In some health plans, a co-payment by the patient reduces the insurer's share. The medical center gives participating doctors credits - an e-mail consultation is valued at half an office visit - that increases their pay.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in California, New York, Florida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Colorado and Tennessee are beginning to pay doctors similar amounts ($24 to $30, including any co-payment) for online consultations. Blue Cross of California has made the program available to 160,000 of its 6 million health plan members. Last month, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield began testing the payment system with New York doctors at the Columbia University and Weill Cornell Medical Centers.
Kaiser Permanente, the nation's largest nonprofit managed care company, has tested patient-physician messaging in the Pacific Northwest and is starting the program this year in Hawaii and Colorado as part of Kaiser's $3 billion information technology program. Kaiser's salaried doctors get credits for messaging, adding to their pay.
System providers say overuse by doctors and fraud have not been problems. RelayHealth, a secure electronic system used by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, for example, provides monthly user reports with names of doctors and patients.
Doctors who use the medical messaging services are advised to limit their replies to appropriate topics, and, under standard rules, the doctors reply only to patients who have already been examined in the office.
The records could even be useful in fending off medical malpractice lawsuits, according to Eric Zimmerman, a senior vice president of RelayHealth, based in Emeryville, Calif., because allegations based on undocumented telephone calls are often hard to rebut. "Good communications with patients is protective," said Frank A. Sloan, an economist at Duke University who has studied malpractice suits. "This kind of interaction is helpful."
Many of the health plans promoting Internet consultations are also introducing electronic systems that keep track of a patient's medical records and send prescriptions to the pharmacy. For doctors in small private practices who have hesitated to invest in computerized systems, the e-mail exchanges are often a first step into the growing world of health care information technology.
Online consulting is "one of the biggest changes to come to health care since the beginning of the electronic medical record itself," said Judith R. Faulkner, chief executive of Epic Systems, a health information technology company based in Madison, Wis., that is working with Kaiser.
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems is sponsoring a study of disease management programs, including payments for online consultations, to help the government decide whether the benefits would justify the cost to Medicare.
Dr. David J. Brailer, the government's health information technology coordinator, said online communications between patients and physicians were "one of 12 strategies to achieve President Bush's goal of widespread adoption of technology" in health care. But he said more experience was needed before asking Medicare to pay for those exchanges.
A bill introduced in the House on Feb. 11 by Charles A. Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas, and John M. McHugh, a Republican from New York, for the first time included a provision to authorize Medicare to make "bonus payments" to doctors for e-mail consultations.
To comply with federal privacy requirements, medical information technology companies like RelayHealth, Epic and IDX, which is based in South Burlington, Vt., make secure software allowing only the doctor and his staff access to a patient's medical records, including the e-mail exchanges.
Doctors can connect with the secure systems over the Internet from home computers or laptops if they wish, but overnight messages are typically answered the next day.
Some employers are embracing medical e-mailing as a way to help maintain workers' productivity. "Why do I have to leave my office to check out my sore throat?" asked Dr. Jeff Rideout, corporate medical director of Cisco Systems, the big Silicon Valley technology company.
Cisco is paying the Palo Alto Medical Foundation for a one-year trial with the first 500 employees to sign up to see if providing online answers to medical questions eliminates unnecessary appointments for employees. The company's health costs have been rising at 10 percent a year, eroding overall productivity gains, Dr. Rideout said.
Sixty-nine of the foundation's 300 primary care doctors are online in a system provided by Epic. Dr. Paul Tang, the Palo Alto group's chief medical information officer, said it charged $60 a year for patients using the service.
Dr. Tang said most users were people with chronic diseases who were willing to pay for better access to their doctors. But other medical groups said they would prefer that insurers pay for e-mail consultations so there would be no barriers for patients.
The American Medical Association has issued a temporary identification number for online visits in the association's "current procedural terminology" code that doctors and hospitals use in sending bills. But Robert Mills, a spokesman, said the association was waiting for more data on how clinical messaging was being used before issuing code numbers like those for office examinations and follow-up visits that payers refer to in their schedules of fees. "All consumer surveys in the last several years show patients want to be able to communicate through e-mail or messaging," said Dr. Thomas Handler, research director at the Gartner Group, the technology consulting firm. "The problem was, reimbursements for the doctors weren't there."
That is changing quickly. One pleased consumer, Dona Gapp, a schoolteacher in New York, who is expecting her first child in April, said she used e-mail to ask Dr. Richard U. Levine, her obstetrician at the Columbia University Medical Center, if certain vitamins and nonprescription medicines were safe for her.
"It was much easier to have access by e-mail," she said. "When I had a chance to call, it was after 5 o'clock and he was not there." He replied to her e-mail within hours, she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/technology/02online.html?th
Digital Rx: Take Two Aspirins and E-Mail Me in the Morning
By MILT FREUDENHEIM
Doctors may no longer make house calls, but they are answering patient e-mail messages - and being paid for it.
In a move to improve efficiency and control costs, health plans and medical groups around the country are now beginning to pay doctors to reply by e-mail, just as they pay for office visits. While some computer-literate doctors have been using e-mail to communicate informally with patients for years, most have never been paid for that service.
Brian Settlemoir, 39, an accountant in Folsom, Calif., recently sent an e-mail message to his doctor at the Creekside Medical Group to ask if it was time to reduce the dosage of a medicine after his cholesterol level dropped. The prompt answer was "not yet."
"I'm sitting at work," Mr. Settlemoir said. "I've got e-mail open anyway. It's much easier than calling and getting voice-mail prompts and sitting on hold. It's very valuable to me."
Blue Shield of California pays his doctor $25 for each online exchange, the same as it pays for an office visit. Some insurers pay a bit less for e-mailing, and patients in some health plans are charged a $5 or $10 co-payment that is billed to their credit card and relayed to the doctor.
For doctors, the convenience of online exchanges can be considerable. They say they can offer advice about postsurgical care, diet, changing a medication and other topics that can be handled safely and promptly without an office visit or a frustrating round of telephone tag. And surveys have shown that e-mail, by reducing the number of daily office visits, gives physicians more time to spend with patients who need to be seen face to face.
For patients, e-mail allows them to send their medical questions from home in the evening, without missing work and spending time in a doctor's waiting room. In fact, many say exchanges in the more relaxed, conversational realm of e-mail make them feel closer to their doctors.
The patients can also use the e-mail connections, which they reach through secure Web sites, to get X-ray and test results and request prescription renewals. Doctors are not paid for these services, except in time saved in the office.
This shift toward online doctor-patient communication is important for another reason. Physicians and health care technology specialists say they believe that it could help spur the changeover to electronic health care information systems, which government officials and industry leaders say is needed to reduce medical errors and promote better care. Doctors at the clinics of the University of California, Davis, grew accustomed to using e-mail for clinical purposes before the clinics introduced electronic medical records, said Dr. Eric Liederman, medical director of clinical information systems at Davis. The messaging "gave them some comfort and facility with using the computer," he said.
Early research at clinics at the university found that using e-mail improved the productivity of physicians, decreased overhead costs and improved access to doctors for patients, including those who still telephoned. "There was a huge reduction in the number of calls," said Dr. Liederman, who is a big fan of e-mail exchanges.
Doctors and insurers say online consultations can be especially useful for patients who have chronic conditions like diabetes, asthma and heart problems. They have been frequent users and being in touch can help them to comply with regimens to cope with their diseases.
"Patients love this stuff; I love this stuff; the staff loves this stuff," said Dr. Barbara Walters, a senior medical director at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire.
One benefit of online messaging - perhaps because it can be done in a setting less harried than a doctor's office - is that it gives patients a greater degree of control.
"The intelligence of our patients never ceases to amaze me," Dr. Walters said. "Patients can describe what's going on with them, if given the chance and given the time." Since last year, several health plans - Anthem Blue Cross, Cigna and Harvard Pilgrim - have been paying Dartmouth-Hitchcock $30 for each online "visit," Dr. Walters said. In some health plans, a co-payment by the patient reduces the insurer's share. The medical center gives participating doctors credits - an e-mail consultation is valued at half an office visit - that increases their pay.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in California, New York, Florida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Colorado and Tennessee are beginning to pay doctors similar amounts ($24 to $30, including any co-payment) for online consultations. Blue Cross of California has made the program available to 160,000 of its 6 million health plan members. Last month, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield began testing the payment system with New York doctors at the Columbia University and Weill Cornell Medical Centers.
Kaiser Permanente, the nation's largest nonprofit managed care company, has tested patient-physician messaging in the Pacific Northwest and is starting the program this year in Hawaii and Colorado as part of Kaiser's $3 billion information technology program. Kaiser's salaried doctors get credits for messaging, adding to their pay.
System providers say overuse by doctors and fraud have not been problems. RelayHealth, a secure electronic system used by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, for example, provides monthly user reports with names of doctors and patients.
Doctors who use the medical messaging services are advised to limit their replies to appropriate topics, and, under standard rules, the doctors reply only to patients who have already been examined in the office.
The records could even be useful in fending off medical malpractice lawsuits, according to Eric Zimmerman, a senior vice president of RelayHealth, based in Emeryville, Calif., because allegations based on undocumented telephone calls are often hard to rebut. "Good communications with patients is protective," said Frank A. Sloan, an economist at Duke University who has studied malpractice suits. "This kind of interaction is helpful."
Many of the health plans promoting Internet consultations are also introducing electronic systems that keep track of a patient's medical records and send prescriptions to the pharmacy. For doctors in small private practices who have hesitated to invest in computerized systems, the e-mail exchanges are often a first step into the growing world of health care information technology.
Online consulting is "one of the biggest changes to come to health care since the beginning of the electronic medical record itself," said Judith R. Faulkner, chief executive of Epic Systems, a health information technology company based in Madison, Wis., that is working with Kaiser.
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems is sponsoring a study of disease management programs, including payments for online consultations, to help the government decide whether the benefits would justify the cost to Medicare.
Dr. David J. Brailer, the government's health information technology coordinator, said online communications between patients and physicians were "one of 12 strategies to achieve President Bush's goal of widespread adoption of technology" in health care. But he said more experience was needed before asking Medicare to pay for those exchanges.
A bill introduced in the House on Feb. 11 by Charles A. Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas, and John M. McHugh, a Republican from New York, for the first time included a provision to authorize Medicare to make "bonus payments" to doctors for e-mail consultations.
To comply with federal privacy requirements, medical information technology companies like RelayHealth, Epic and IDX, which is based in South Burlington, Vt., make secure software allowing only the doctor and his staff access to a patient's medical records, including the e-mail exchanges.
Doctors can connect with the secure systems over the Internet from home computers or laptops if they wish, but overnight messages are typically answered the next day.
Some employers are embracing medical e-mailing as a way to help maintain workers' productivity. "Why do I have to leave my office to check out my sore throat?" asked Dr. Jeff Rideout, corporate medical director of Cisco Systems, the big Silicon Valley technology company.
Cisco is paying the Palo Alto Medical Foundation for a one-year trial with the first 500 employees to sign up to see if providing online answers to medical questions eliminates unnecessary appointments for employees. The company's health costs have been rising at 10 percent a year, eroding overall productivity gains, Dr. Rideout said.
Sixty-nine of the foundation's 300 primary care doctors are online in a system provided by Epic. Dr. Paul Tang, the Palo Alto group's chief medical information officer, said it charged $60 a year for patients using the service.
Dr. Tang said most users were people with chronic diseases who were willing to pay for better access to their doctors. But other medical groups said they would prefer that insurers pay for e-mail consultations so there would be no barriers for patients.
The American Medical Association has issued a temporary identification number for online visits in the association's "current procedural terminology" code that doctors and hospitals use in sending bills. But Robert Mills, a spokesman, said the association was waiting for more data on how clinical messaging was being used before issuing code numbers like those for office examinations and follow-up visits that payers refer to in their schedules of fees. "All consumer surveys in the last several years show patients want to be able to communicate through e-mail or messaging," said Dr. Thomas Handler, research director at the Gartner Group, the technology consulting firm. "The problem was, reimbursements for the doctors weren't there."
That is changing quickly. One pleased consumer, Dona Gapp, a schoolteacher in New York, who is expecting her first child in April, said she used e-mail to ask Dr. Richard U. Levine, her obstetrician at the Columbia University Medical Center, if certain vitamins and nonprescription medicines were safe for her.
"It was much easier to have access by e-mail," she said. "When I had a chance to call, it was after 5 o'clock and he was not there." He replied to her e-mail within hours, she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/technology/02online.html?th
posted by stebaldos at 4:33 PM
0 comments
Siria smentisce attesa di attacco americano
Esteri01 mar 21:02 Medioriente: Siria smentisce attesa di attacco americano
DAMASCO - Smentita dal governo di Damasco la dichiarazione del presidente Bashar al-Assad, che dava per imminente un attacco alla Siria da parte degli Stati Uniti "quando sara' terminata la guerra in Iraq". La dichiarazione era stata fatta dallo stesso Assad in un'intervista, rilasciata ieri ad un quotidiano nazionale italiano. Citando non meglio precisate "fonti ufficiali", l'agenzia di stampa siriana "Sina" ha reso noto "che nelle affermazioni rilasciate dal presidente Assad cio' non era compreso". (Agr)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7775841
DAMASCO - Smentita dal governo di Damasco la dichiarazione del presidente Bashar al-Assad, che dava per imminente un attacco alla Siria da parte degli Stati Uniti "quando sara' terminata la guerra in Iraq". La dichiarazione era stata fatta dallo stesso Assad in un'intervista, rilasciata ieri ad un quotidiano nazionale italiano. Citando non meglio precisate "fonti ufficiali", l'agenzia di stampa siriana "Sina" ha reso noto "che nelle affermazioni rilasciate dal presidente Assad cio' non era compreso". (Agr)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7775841
posted by stebaldos at 4:30 PM
0 comments
Previous Posts
- corporate e caro salari
- I mestieri perduti dei nuovi precari
- Addio Corporate America
- unicredit-capitalia
- Così stanno rubando le rive del Po
- allarme sicurezza stradale
- voglia di aggregazione nord italia
- Rifiuti, pulite le città virtuose
- la svolta verde di Bush
- Effetto serra, un miliardo di profughi
Archives
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
