Fuentes de contaminación alimentaria

Polluted America: GMO Manmade Biological Threats, Plant Diseases, Germ Warfare

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Saber comer es muy importante. Nos va la vida en ello. Por eso he escogido el presente artículo que ofrece un sombrío panorama de la contaminación alimentaria. Recientemente los consumidores de la zona euro nos hemos visto sorprendidos por la presencia de carne de caballo en artículos supuestamente de ternera. La carne de caballo no es tóxica. La mentira sí.


Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/polluted-america-gmo-manmade-biological-threats-plant-diseases-germ-warfare/5324336

In the United States everything is polluted.

Democracy is polluted with special interests and corrupt politicians.

Accountability is polluted with executive branch exemptions from law and the Constitution and with special legal privileges for corporations, such as the Supreme Court given right to corporations to purchase American elections.

The Constitution is polluted with corrupt legal interpretations from the Bush and Obama regimes that have turned constitutional prohibitions into executive branch rights, transforming law from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of government.

Waters are polluted with toxic waste spills, oil spills, chemical fertilizer run-off with resulting red tides and dead zones, acid discharges from mining with resulting destructive algae such as prymnesium parvum, from toxic chemicals used in fracking and with methane that fracking releases into wells and aquifers, resulting in warnings to homeowners near to fracking operations to open their windows when showering.

The soil’s fertility is damaged, and crops require large quantities of chemical fertilizers. The soil is polluted with an endless array of toxic substances and now with glyphosate, the main element in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide with which GMO crops are sprayed.
Glyphosate now shows up in wells, streams and in rain.

Air is polluted with a variety of substances, and there are many large cities in which there are days when the young, the elderly, and those suffering with asthma are warned to remain indoors.

All of these costs are costs imposed on society and ordinary people by corporations that banked profits by not having to take the costs into account. This is the way in which unregulated capitalism works.

Our food itself is polluted with antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides, and glyphosate.

Glyphosate might be the most dangerous development to date. Some scientists believe that glyphosate has the potential to wipe out our main grain crops and now that Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, has approved genetically modified Roundup Ready alfalfa, maintaining sustainable animal herds for milk and meat could become impossible.

Alfalfa is the main forage crop for dairy and beef herds. Genetically modified alfalfa could be unsafe for animal feed, and animal products such as milk and meat could become unsafe for human consumption.

On January 17, 2011, Dr. Don Huber outlined the dangers of approving Roundup Ready alfalfa in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. Huber requested that approval be delayed until independent research could evaluate the risks. Vilsack ignored the letter and accommodated Monsanto’s desire for monopoly profits that come from the company’s drive to control the seed supply of US and world agriculture by approving Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Who is Don Huber, and why is his letter important?

Huber is professor emeritus at Purdue University. He has been a plant pathologist and soil microbiologist for a half century. He has an international reputation as a leading authority. In the US military, he evaluated natural and manmade biological threats, such as germ warfare and disease outbreaks and retired with the rank of Colonel. For the USDA he coordinates the Emergent Diseases and Pathogens Committee. In other words, he is high up in his scientific profession.

You can read online what Huber told the Secretary of Agriculture. Briefly, the outcome of many years of Roundup Ready GMO corn and soybeans has been a decline in nutritional value, the outbreak of new plant diseases resulting in widespread crop failures, and severe reproductive problems in livestock, with some herds having a spontaneous abortion rate that is too high to maintain a profitable business.

Glyphosate is a powerful biocide. It harms beneficial soil organisms, altering the natural balance in the soil and reducing the disease resistance of crops, thus unleashing diseases that devastate corn, soybean, and wheat crops, and giving rise to a new pathogen associated with premature animal aging and infertility. These developments, Huber told the Agriculture Secretary, “are threatening the economic viability of both crop and animal producers.” The evidence seems to be real that genetically modified crops have lost their genetic resistance to diseases that never previously were threats.

There is evidence that the new pathogen is related to a rise in human infertility and is likely having adverse effects on human health of which we are still uninformed. Like fluoride, glyphosate might enter our diet in a variety of ways. For example, the label on a bottle of Vitamin D says, “Other ingredients: soybean oil, corn oil.”

Monsanto disputes Huber’s claims and got support for its position from the agricultural extension services of Iowa State and Ohio State universities. However, the question is whether these are independently funded services or corporate supported, and there is always the element of professional rivalry, especially for funding, which comes mainly from agribusiness.

The Purdue University extension service was more circumspect. On the one hand it admits that there is evidence that supports Huber’s claims: “The claim that herbicides, such as glyphosate, can make plants more susceptible to disease is not entirely without merit. Research has indicated that plants sprayed with glyphosate or other herbicides are more susceptible to many biological and physiological disorders (Babiker et al., 2011; Descalzo et al., 1996; Johal and Rahe, 1984; Larson et al., 2006; Means and Kremer, 2007; Sanogo et al., 2000; Smiley et al., 1992). . . . Although some research indicates there is an increase in disease severity on plants in the presence of glyphosate, it does NOT necessarily mean that there is an impact on yield.”

On the other hand, the Purdue extension service maintains its recommendation for “judicious glyphosate use for weed control.” However, one of Huber’s points is that weeds are developing Roundup resistance. Use has gone beyond the “judicious” level and as glyphosate builds up in soil, its adverse effects increase.

A submission to the Environmental Protection Agency by 26 university entomologists describes the constraints that agribusiness has put on the ability of independent scientists to conduct objective research. The submission, in which the scientists are afraid to reveal their names because of the threat of funding cutoffs, is included as an item in one of the bibliographical references below. Here is the statement:

“The names of the scientists have been withheld from the public docket because virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research. Statement: Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.”

Monsanto is not only sufficiently powerful to prevent any research other than that which it purchases with its funding, but also Monsanto succeeded last year in blocking with money and propaganda the GMO labeling law in California. I would tell you to be careful what you eat as it can make you ill and infertile, but you can’t even find out what you are eating.

You live in America, which has “freedom and democracy” and “accountable” government and ”accountable” corporations. You don’t need to worry. The government and responsible corporations are taking good care of you. Especially Obama, Vilsack, and Monsanto.

Short bibliography:

http://fhr.branditimage.com/hot-topic-letter-to-us-secretary-of-agriculture/

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/apr/6/don-hubers-cover-letter-euuk-commissions/

La agroindustria con organismos genéticamente manipulados vista con lupa

GMO Agribusiness and the Destructive Nature of Global Capitalism

By Colin Todhunter

Aquí se habla de las  consecuencia de ciertas tecnologías agroalimentarias. La industria de producción de alimentos es tal vez el renglón más sensible a la introducción de semillas genéticamente modificadas. ¿Son los organismos genéticamente manipulados (GMO) la respuesta segura e idónea para satisfacer las necesidades de los países pobres? (evito las cursilerías de "países emergentes"). ¿Cuáles son los riesgos reales?, ¿Se trata de leyendas negras anticientíficas?. La opinión de Todhunter es una de las tantas respuestas posibles.
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-agribusiness-and-the-destructive-nature-of-global-capitalism/5323232

Capitalism is based on managing its inherent crises. It is also based on the need to maximise profit, beat down competitors, cut overheads and depress wages. In the 1960s and 70s, in the face of increasing competition from abroad, the US began to outsource manufacturing production to bring down costs by using cheap foreign labour. Other countries followed suit. Even more jobs were lost through the impulse to automate. To provide a further edge, trade unions and welfare were attacked in order to suppress wages at home. Problem solved. Or was it?

Not really. As wages in the west stagnated or decreased and unemployment increased, the market for goods was under threat – if people have less money to buy things, then what to do? New problem, new ‘solution’ – lend people money and create a debt-ridden consumer society. Of course, it produced great opportunities for investors in finance, and all kinds of dubious financial derivatives and products were created, sold to the public and repackaged and shifted around the banking system. That market became saturated and the debt bubble burst. This time around the ‘solution’ is to print money and give bailouts to the banks to cover their gambling losses and to get them lending once again. With a huge hole appearing in state coffers due to the bailouts and national debt spiraling during the years of neo-liberalism, the current crisis has become an opportunity for the finance sector to exert long-term debt-related control over sovereign states, including public asset stripping via ‘austerity’.

On a global level, as local democracy is usurped by the influence of international finance and powerful corporate interests under the guise of ‘globalisation’, traditional agricultural practices and local economies have been ‘structurally adjusted’ (via single-crop export-oriented policies to earn foreign currency to pay off debt, dam building to cater for what became a highly water intensive chemical-based industry, more loans and indebtedness and the unnecessary shifting food around the planet) and farmers forced from their land. The fact that such people can then at least swarm to some sprawling, overburdened city and, if lucky, get a few dollars a day job in an outsourced sweatshop or call centre is somehow passed off as capitalism’s ‘economic miracle’.

It’s apparent that, as the academic David Harvey states, the problems created by capitalism don’t get solved, they just get shifted around. Nowhere is this epitomized more clearly than the role of US agribusiness in India.

According to Jeffrey M Smith from the Institute for Responsible Technology, Russia, China and  the  EU were not the pushovers for GMOs that US agribusiness hoped they would be. However, with the US having sanctioned the opening up of India’s nuclear energy sector and, in return, its agribusiness and retail giants having actively shaped the Knowledge Agreement on Agriculture, India might well be proving to be an easier option.

Before GMOs became news in India, it was already clear that US agribusiness could not provide real solutions to the agrarian problems it had created with its ‘Green Revolution’. According to Gautam Dheer’s recent piece in India’s Deccan Herald newspaper (1), agriculture in Punjab (the ‘Green Revolution’s’ original poster boy) is facing an inevitable crisis, in terms of pesticide use causing cancer, falling crop yields and groundwater depletion. The model it has adapted is unsustainable. Indeed, what is happening in Punjab could be the tip of the iceberg as far as chemical agriculture in India (and elsewhere) is concerned.

And now evidence is mounting that agribusiness can’t provide genuine solutions to the problems it has also created through its GMOs, seed patenting and monopolies either.

A recent report in Business Standard (2) stated that such Bt cotton (GMOs represent the ‘Green Revolution’s’ second coming) yields have dropped to a five-year low. India approved Bt cotton in 2002 and within a few years yields increased dramatically. However, Glenn Davis Stone, Professor of Anthropology and Environmental Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, has noted that most of the rise in productivity had nothing to do with Bt cotton. (3)

What’s more, since Bt has taken over, yields have been steadily worsening. According to the article in Business Standard (2), it seems bollworms are developing resistance. Contrary to what farmers were originally told, the Monsanto spokesperson quoted in the Business Standard piece says that such resistance is to be expected. Stone says when Bt cotton arrived in India, farmers were told that they wouldn’t have to spray any more. All that farmers had to do was plant the seeds and water them regularly. They were told that, as the genetically modified seeds are insect resistant, there was no need to use huge amounts of pesticides.

The premise adopted by the GM sector was that for years people had tried to change ‘backward’ tradition-bound practices of these farmers. But now all you have to do is give them the magic biotech seed.(Consultar URL mencionada).

Wellcome Kuba

Una entrada super breve para dar la bienvenida a las/los amigos que desde Cuba visitan codondesastre. Cuando son muy pocos los que disponen de acceso a la web es de agradecer su atención. Tal vez Maite Etxeberria ha pasado por aquí. Un saludo a todos los/las compis Guardafronteras del aeropuerto José Martí en La Habana. Y pa´lante y pa´lante.

El arte de la fuga en Madrid

- "Me van a matar"- dice él, sin descubrir quién o quiénes lo amenazan. Así que de momento  los posibles perpetradores  quedan a merced de mi florida imaginación. El triste trance ocurre entre tres días de fiesta. Del viernes 26 de abril al primero de mayo, que cae lunes. Hoy es jueves 25 de abril de 1986. Estamos en el Parque del Retiro.

Él es mi marido, el padre de mi única hija. Pero ahora es sólo un tipo grande, tirando a ancho, con casi dos metros de envergadura, que afirma que lo van a matar. Lo hace entre lágrimas negras (como mi viiida), lagrimones discontinuos, acompañados de moqueo vacilante.

Tiene cincuenta años, muy viajados por  Europa, Rusia soviética, y los dichosos países del campo socialista. Con alguna que otra breve incursión por  América Latina. Él ha tenido la oportunidad de visitar países que yo imagino como un gran mural entre pop y Diego Rivera. Sueño territorios plagados de curas justicieros, narcos, guerrilleros barbudos y románticos, etarras montañeros, poetas diciochescos, quilapayunes, quenas, soroches, chiles, cochayuyos, teólogos, tupamaros  o putumayos, y otros especímenes innombrables. Y no comprendo cómo soy capaz de recrearme en tan disparatada evocación  americana. Me atenaza  un problema real. Aquí y ahora.

 Son las once de la mañana, me digo.  Tengo que pensar, repito, mientras mis neuronas amenazan con estallar en constelaciones dispersas. Porque, si pienso que tengo que pensar, ¿entonces qué  hago en este instante?.  Existo, sólo existo. Voy por ahí conmigo. Con mi  ADN a cuestas. Tal vez he dado con  la clave de la meditación trascendental. Me pienso como materia pensante que se piensa. Semejante cacao neuronal me sobrepasa. Decido moverme. No se me ocurre nada mejor que andar por el parque.

 - No  vayas lejos, advierte él con esa cara de  angustia que no termina por provocarme compasión. Respondo que está bien, que se esté tranquilo, que no se preocupe,  y me marcho cuanto antes. 

Emprendo la décima vuelta en torno al estanque del Parque del Buen Retiro. Miro  las barcas, y  los paseantes con perros y niños. Ahí está la señora andrajosa alimentando con migas a las palomas.  Aves sanguinarias, y nada pacíficas. Reductos de dinosaurios con buena imagen.  Veo una familia feliz arrastrando un cochecito. Estoy ante un dilema. Y lo mejor que se me ocurre es consultar a una cartomántica.

- Chhheeé, que karma tenés- dice la adivina, y pide dos mil por el ala. A ti te pasa algo muy fuerte ché. Vos estás cargada de energía. Tenés un aura que espanta, añade ella muy docta. Negocio que por mil quinientas haga una predicción energética más precisa. Acepta descubrirme el arcano por mil quinientas pesetas en honor de la improbable afinidad continental que nos debería unir. 

 Yo no soy de ninguna parte, pienso. Paso de tambores, maracas, y bongoes,  panderos,  castañuelas, o quenas autóctonas de cualquier sitio.  Pero bueno, la cartomántica, cuya especialidad es el tarot, pregunta que de que sabor quiero el mensaje del más allá. Me entero que hay cuatro formas de echar las cartas. Es mi primera experiencia adivinatoria.

-Tú sabrás- digo.

Ella manipula el mazo de cartas muy manoseado pero bastante limpio. Lo corta y reparte en varias pilas, y  dice que escoja, y descubra las cartas. Lo hago, y a la vista de las figuras la argentina, porteña ella, se explaya en un discurso digno de un congreso latinoamericano de cartománticas del altiplano.

Desde su cátedra mínima, cuenta la historia de una mujer hermosa y tranquila que, dice ella,  abre con sus manos las fauces de un león.

- Sometiéndole a su poder- afirma mirándome fijo.

Explica la argentina que la mujer lleva un sombrero con la forma del signo matemático del infinito. Asegura que semejante tocado representa la fusión de lo mental con lo físico.

 -Jolín, si que voy fina con el infinito por montera. Así no se llega a ninguna parte en un universo finito, temporal,  de andar por casa, como es el mío- pienso. Y desisto de continuar escuchando el tratado de futurología porteña que se me ofrece por el mismo módico precio. Agradezco el pronóstico reservado, que prevé nubes y claros. Pago, y me despido. La futuróloga se me queda mirando con expresión profunda de  argentina cartomántica del Parque del Retiro.

Recorro el paseo como un zombi haitiano. Que sólo la acción confirma a la materia pensante. No es  de Groucho ni de Karl. Se me ha ocurrido a mí. A mí, que escribí una tesis con más de cien inútiles páginas sobre la neurosecreción de una fútil polilla de nombre Spodoptera frugiperda. La pobre S. frugiperda, que hace todo lo que tiene que hacer en quince miserables días, y después muere. Casi siempre entre movimientos con el abdomen, espasmódicos o lúbricos, según quién los mire. Sigue, sigue, sigue, así, así, lo estas haciendo muy bien, muy bien, y  arroja millones de huevos de los que saldrán millones de nuevas S. frugiperdas, que harán lo mismo.

Pero qué S. frugiperda ni S. frugiperda. Quiero  reflexionar. No me valen ni el realismo mágico de García Márquez, ni la Crítica de la Razón Pura, ni el Discurso del Método. Doy otra vuelta alrededor del estanque y regreso al banco de piedra donde reposa él. Por fortuna se le han secado las lágrimas.

Ahora tiene cara de cansancio, y propone que vayamos a tomar algo en el chiringuito de la otra parte. Respondo que está bien. Y me entretengo en contemplar como se deslizan las barcas por el estanque. Como si fuera domingo. Cuando uno sale a pasear, y apenas nota como pasa el tiempo hasta que se da cuenta de que ya es  hora de comer. Entonces pliegas el periódico, recoges los suplementos, el horóscopo, el cuadernillo infantil, y tiras el anuncio del banco Hispano en una papelera municipal. 

Cuán confusa, aturdida y transververada, estoy (Ayúdame Teresa, querida). Que no recuerdo ni quien soy, ni cómo me llamo. Pero entonces ocurre algo anormal. Descubro todos los colores del arco iris en esa luz cegadora que desdibuja su cara. Cada trozo de imagen se aleja como una galaxia en busca de su gran atractor. Escucho una detonación, y luego un gran estruendo. Lo seguiré oyendo una y otra vez.

Los peligros de la comida basura en USA

 La primera vez que como adulta viajé a Estados Unidos, me llamaron mucho la atención dos cosas: lo desmesurado de los espacios comerciales (Mall of America en Minneapolis) y la gran cantidad de personas, de todas las edades, muy gordas (o para decirlo en el meta lenguaje correcto:
 "la significativa presencia de casos de sobrepeso u obesidad". Uno de los factores que al parecer contribuye a la alta incidencia de obesos es la costumbre arraigada y casi típica de consumir comida basura (junk). La comida basura prima la presencia de sal, azúcar, emulgentes y grasas saturadas. No es que vayan directo a la formación de michelines. Lo primero que hacen es enganchar firmemente al cerebro (entre otras zonas el hipotálamo). La mayoría de las chuches grasientas disparan una satisfacción violenta que finalmente crea adicción. La sal (Na) es un componente básico de nuestro cuerpo. El equilibrio Na-K (sodio-potasio) nos mantiene vivos. Si a todo lo dicho añadimos su textura crujiente, sus colores "guay" y los vistosos envases no hay mucho más que hablar: uno necesita repetir una y otra vez la ingesta. Con los refrescos priman los azúcares. Y van directo al cerebro (que contiene mucha agua). Las burbujas son gratificantes. Pero la industria está muy preocupada ya que las consecuencias de la obesidad repercuten en la salud pública. Es decir en el bolsillo de los contribuyentes.

"On the evening of April 8, 1999, a long line of Town Cars and taxis pulled up to the Minneapolis headquarters of Pillsbury and discharged 11 men who controlled America’s largest food companies. Nestlé was in attendance, as were Kraft and Nabisco, General Mills and Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Mars. Rivals any other day, the C.E.O.’s and company presidents had come together for a rare, private meeting. On the agenda was one item: the emerging obesity epidemic and how to deal with it. While the atmosphere was cordial, the men assembled were hardly friends. Their nature was defined by their skill in fighting one another for what they called “stomach share” — the amount of digestive space that any one company’s brand can grab from the competition. embasee

 

Enlarge This Image

Grant Cornett for The New York Times

James Behnke, a 55-year-old executive at Pillsbury, greeted the men as they arrived. He was anxious but also hopeful about the plan that he and a few other food-company executives had devised to engage the C.E.O.’s on America’s growing weight problem. “We were very concerned, and rightfully so, that obesity was becoming a major issue,” Behnke recalled. “People were starting to talk about sugar taxes, and there was a lot of pressure on food companies.” Getting the company chiefs in the same room to talk about anything, much less a sensitive issue like this, was a tricky business, so Behnke and his fellow organizers had scripted the meeting carefully, honing the message to its barest essentials. “C.E.O.’s in the food industry are typically not technical guys, and they’re uncomfortable going to meetings where technical people talk in technical terms about technical things,” Behnke said. “They don’t want to be embarrassed. They don’t want to make commitments. They want to maintain their aloofness and autonomy.”

A chemist by training with a doctoral degree in food science, Behnke became Pillsbury’s chief technical officer in 1979 and was instrumental in creating a long line of hit products, including microwaveable popcorn. He deeply admired Pillsbury but in recent years had grown troubled by pictures of obese children suffering from diabetes and the earliest signs of hypertension and heart disease. In the months leading up to the C.E.O. meeting, he was engaged in conversation with a group of food-science experts who were painting an increasingly grim picture of the public’s ability to cope with the industry’s formulations — from the body’s fragile controls on overeating to the hidden power of some processed foods to make people feel hungrier still. It was time, he and a handful of others felt, to warn the C.E.O.’s that their companies may have gone too far in creating and marketing products that posed the greatest health concerns.

The discussion took place in Pillsbury’s auditorium. The first speaker was a vice president of Kraft named Michael Mudd. “I very much appreciate this opportunity to talk to you about childhood obesity and the growing challenge it presents for us all,” Mudd began. “Let me say right at the start, this is not an easy subject. There are no easy answers — for what the public health community must do to bring this problem under control or for what the industry should do as others seek to hold it accountable for what has happened. But this much is clear: For those of us who’ve looked hard at this issue, whether they’re public health professionals or staff specialists in your own companies, we feel sure that the one thing we shouldn’t do is nothing.”

As he spoke, Mudd clicked through a deck of slides — 114 in all — projected on a large screen behind him. The figures were staggering. More than half of American adults were now considered overweight, with nearly one-quarter of the adult population — 40 million people — clinically defined as obese. Among children, the rates had more than doubled since 1980, and the number of kids considered obese had shot past 12 million. (This was still only 1999; the nation’s obesity rates would climb much higher.) Food manufacturers were now being blamed for the problem from all sides — academia, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. The secretary of agriculture, over whom the industry had long held sway, had recently called obesity a “national epidemic.”

This article is adapted from “Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us,” which will be published by Random House this month.
Michael Moss is an investigative reporter for The Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 2010 for his reporting on the meat industry.
Editor: Joel Lovell

A version of this article appeared in print on February 24, 2013, on page MM34 of the Sunday Magazine with the headline: Salt + Fat 2 Satisfying Crunch.

Ciberchinos al ataque

El 25/10/2011 publiqué un artículo del analista ruso Boris Volkhonsky. El autor analizaba un presunto ciberataque a Libia. Lo titulé “Las ciberguerras que vienen”. Y el corto tiempo transcurrido nos ha dado la razón. La información ahora ha saltado a todas las primeras páginas del mundo. El asunto es, dicho pronto y claro, que según la empresa de seguridad informática (y de otros sectores) “Mandiant”, numerosas empresas estadounidenses han sido espiadas por un equipo (que supongo minucioso, capaz y  paciente) de ciberpiratas chinos. Como en las buenas pelis los de Mandiant han ubicado el sitio del que partió el múltiple ataque: un edificio de 12 plantas entre las calles Tonggang y Datog en la capital China, donde tiene su sede la unidad 61389 del Ejército Popular. Los chinos se mostraron interesados por las intimidades de empresas como la emblemática CocaCola, y claro, servicios estratégicos como suministro de gas, agua y redes eléctricas (y posiblemente centrales nucleares y aeropuertos.


El presidente Obama, que al parecer no leyó el artículo de Volkhonsky en su día, ahora sí se ha dado por enterado y ha puesto en estado de máxima alerta a todo el aparato de seguridad.

Los representantes diplomáticos chinos destacados en Estados Unidos, no se dan por aludidos: “Mi-no-savel-na”. (Con datos del NYT).

¿Desnudos o vestidos?

Google Moves to Destroy Online Anonymity ... Unintentionally Helping Authoritarian Governments
By Global Research News and Washington's Blog

Aquí les presento un articulillo que posiblemente meta el dedo en el ojo de muchos mandamases. Tiene que ver con el derecho (o no ) de permanecer anónimos cuando publicamos  en la red. Yo personalmente prefiero (casi) siempre dar la cara. Y eso me obliga a una cierta autocensura. Llamémoslo a seguir un código de buena conducta o manual de estilo. Pero opino que quienes quieran permanecer en la oscuridad deberían poder hacerlo sin que se les moleste. La literatura satírica, las bromas, la ironía, y sí, la burla más descarnada, están mejor bajo pseudónimo. Veremos que opinan ustedes.

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/google-moves-to-destroy-online-anonymity-unintentionally-helping-authoritarian-governments/5322542

Governments Move to Destroy Online Anonymity
Some of the world’s leading social critics and political critics have used pen names.
As Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge points out (edited slightly for readability):

Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks), anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the United States. Used by the likes of Mark Twain (aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (aka publius) to write the Federalist Papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume.

Particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the United States, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech.

Like the Economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker – as it should be. We believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn’t.
But governments – especially authoritarian governments – hate anonymity.
A soon-to-be-released book by Google executive Eric Schmidt - called “The New Digital Age” – describes the desire of authoritarian governments to destroy anonymity. The Wall Street Journal provides an excerpt:
Some governments will consider it too risky to have thousands of anonymous, untraceable and unverified citizens — “hidden people”; they’ll want to know who is associated with each online account, and will require verification at a state level, in order to exert control over the virtual world.
Last December, China started requiring all web users to register using their real names.
But the U.S. is quickly moving in the same direction. As Gene Howington reported last year:
Do you have a right to anonymous political free speech?
According to the Supreme Court, you do. According to the Department of Homeland Security, you don’t. They’ve hired General Dynamics to track U.S. citizens exercising this critical civil right.
The history of anonymous political free speech in America dates back to our founding. The seminal essays found in “The Federalist Papers” were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under the nom de plume of “Publius” although this was not confirmed until a list of authorship complied by Hamilton was posthumously released to the public.