sexta-feira, 31 de dezembro de 2021
O desastrado processo da nomeação do chefe do Estado-Maior da Armada
José Pacheco
Pereira
Professor
Ontem
Alguma coisa de estranho no “Almirante das vacinas”
Dois ou três anos
de restrições intermitentes, regras moderadas e quase sempre violadas, parecem
atirar com toda a gente para a Psiquiatria. Estou a falar de uma parte da
burguesia, pequena e média, urbana, fechada num egoísmo individual.
Como toda a gente
congratulei-me pela boa gestão do processo das vacinas pelo vice-almirante
Gouveia e Melo. Nunca foi pela farda, que pelos comentários, uns populistas
outros irresponsáveis vindos de quem vêm, reforça o perigoso sentimento dos
militares eficientes versus os políticos incompetentes. Manifestei essas
reservas aqui mesmo. Por outro lado, elogiei-o pela atitude de confrontar uns
negacionistas que lhe apareceram à frente em vez de fazer de conta que eles não
existiam ou fugir pela porta do fundo.
Mas, depois de
terminar essa missão, e transformado no "homem do ano", com o nosso
habitual embasbacamento e ligeireza sebastianista, veio ao de cima uma espécie
de vaidade e ambição pura que, essa sim, me preocupa. Não porque entenda que
qualquer cidadão não tenha o direito de ter opiniões políticas e actuar em
função delas, incluindo fazer um partido ou movimento e concorrer às eleições.
Mas estamos perante um militar que foi nomeado para chefe da Armada, por razões
estritamente políticas e que, nem que seja por esse cargo, devia moderar a
tentação de, criticando os que se lhe seguiram, se engrandecer a si próprio. Se
quer criar um movimento cívico, se quer explicar como se situa entre a esquerda
e a direita (comparando percebe-se que está mais à direita do que à esquerda),
se quer vir a ser candidato presidencial, tudo muito bem. Mas nesse caso não
aceite as funções de chefe do Estado-Maior da Armada.(…)
OPINIÃO
O desastrado processo da nomeação do chefe do
Estado-Maior da Armada
Tudo isto é muito doloroso de escrever, mas seria
vantajoso que deste enorme erro se tirassem lições para o futuro. Será deste
modo que os principais responsáveis deste processo (ministro da Defesa e chefe
do Estado-Maior General das Forças Armadas) querem dirigir as FA? E julgam que
são respeitados?
José Eduardo
Garcia Leandro
30 de Dezembro de
2021, 18:50
Já com 81 anos e
depois de 1976, nunca assisti a um processo tão desastrado como o que ocorreu
com a novela que o atual Governo protagonizou com a nomeação do novo chefe do
Estado-Maior da Armada, embora muitos incidentes desnecessários tenham
acontecido noutras ocasiões. Ninguém que eu conheça ou que tenha ouvido sabe
bem o que se passou e as pessoas dividem-se em dois grupos: os que nada
perceberam; e os que pensam ter percebido e que são profundamente contra.
Os almirantes
Mendes Calado e Gouveia e Melo, se bem que centrais e importantes neste
processo, não são o foco do problema. A competência e a carreira de qualquer um
deles não estão em causa. As Forças Armadas não se regem pelo comportamento dos
partidos políticos, nem se gerem do mesmo modo; não se chega a general ou
almirante com a mesma facilidade com que se é nomeado ministro ou se é eleito
deputado, pois o mérito, o sentido da responsabilidade de comando desde muito
novo, a avaliação permanente, o sentido de Estado e a experiência ganha ao longo
de muitos anos fazem a diferença. É claro que também há exceções a esta norma
habitual. E nunca houve o circo mediático que agora surgiu!
O que está aqui
verdadeiramente em causa é o facto de alguns políticos com enormes
responsabilidades não perceberem as diferenças (ou não as quererem perceber) e
permanentemente desvalorizarem e menorizarem as suas Forças Armadas. Não se
substitui um chefe militar como acontece nos ministérios e nos partidos
políticos.
Não se chega a general ou almirante com a mesma facilidade
com que se é nomeado ministro ou se é eleito deputado (...). . Não se substitui
um chefe militar como acontece nos ministérios e nos partidos políticos
Neste caso
concreto, o almirante Gouveia e Melo fez um trabalho excecional como
coordenador de todo o sistema da vacinação anticovid-19 e a população ficou
deslumbrada, porque até aí tudo estava a correr mal, o Governo estava perdido e
depois passou a correr com grande eficiência. Mas depois ele foi arrastado para
a armadilha das entrevistas e homenagens repetidas e abriu-se demais sobre
assuntos que não lhe competiam e em que devia ter mais prudência.
O almirante
Mendes Calado cumpria com discrição e eficiência a sua missão de CEMA tendo
(parece) admitido sair mais cedo da sua função (situação que só se poria no 3.º
trimestre de 2022). Em setembro deste ano, o senhor ministro da Defesa Nacional
resolveu propor a sua substituição, o que não o ocorreu por oposição do nosso
Presidente, mas em dezembro aquilo que fora recusado três meses antes passou a
ser válido e Mendes Calado foi simplesmente despedido. Tem isto algum sentido?
Nem sequer se punha a questão do limite de idade de Gouveia e Melo que só
acontece em novembro de 2022. E não há alta condecoração, ainda que justa, que
resolva esta ofensa contra o Estado de Direito e à dignidade da pessoa e das
Forças Armadas. Todos somos o Almirante Calado!
O general Ramalho
Eanes (sempre uma referência ética e a quem o país muito deve) lembrou no seu
discurso de 7 de outubro no IUM (Instituto Universitário Militar) as
dificuldades que houve para se ultrapassar o PREC e defendeu que não
deveríamos, com uma renovada LOBOFA (Lei Orgânica de Bases da Organização das
Forças Armadas) - muito mal preparada - deixar cair num processo semelhante. Os
resultados estão à vista.
Não há alta condecoração, ainda que justa, que resolva
esta ofensa contra o Estado de Direito e à dignidade da pessoa e das Forças
Armadas. Todos somos o Almirante Calado!
Ainda
recentemente o senhor primeiro-ministro declarou que agora a população
compreende muito melhor as Forças Armadas pela sua importância nas missões
externas, na proteção civil e na vacinação anticovid. Pergunta: foi a população
ou foi ele que as descobriu e compreendeu melhor? Mas continua a dar cobertura
a decisões que as desvalorizam.
Agora o novo CEMA
vai encontrar uma Marinha dividida, quando precisaria de unidade.
E se, com a sua
forte personalidade, verificar que tudo o que pretende fazer na Marinha, que
envolverá meios e pessoal, não vai acontecer? Ainda pode bater com a porta e
dedicar-se a outras atividades. Vamos esperar para ver, até porque, se houver
mais meios para a Marinha, tal tem também de acontecer com o Exército e com a
Força Aérea.
E porquê toda
esta urgência do nosso primeiro-ministro em propor esta nomeação apenas um mês
antes das eleições legislativas, o que aparentemente não tem explicação. Será
que tem receio de perder as eleições e que depois as suas promessas a Gouveia e
Melo não se concretizem?
Será de lembrar
que o ciclo das Forças Armadas nada tem a ver com os ciclos políticos; estas
são apartidárias e cumprem sempre a sua missão independentemente do Governo em
funções. Gostaria de lembrar que, com a V República Francesa, e em sequência
dos Presidentes De Gaulle, Pompidou e Giscard d’Estaing, correspondentes a uma
linha política republicana conservadora, foi eleito Miterrand, socialista e
muito crítico do primeiro, que não substituiu ninguém da estrutura superior das
Forças armadas; só saiu o almirante Phillipe de Gaulle, filho do primeiro e a
seu pedido.
Porquê toda a urgência do nosso primeiro-ministro em
propor esta nomeação apenas um mês antes das eleições legislativas?
Tudo isto é muito
doloroso de escrever, mas seria vantajoso que deste enorme erro se tirassem
lições para o futuro. Será deste modo que os principais responsáveis deste
processo (ministro da Defesa Nacional e chefe do Estado-Maior General das
Forças Armadas) querem dirigir as FA? E julgam que são respeitados?
Seria bom não
esquecer que as pessoas vão passando, mas os seus erros ficam. O tempo é sempre
o Grande Juiz! Vamos esperar, mas os primeiros resultados estão à vista; em
pouco menos de um ano, seria impossível fazer pior.
Tenente-general
na reserva. Antigo vice-chefe do Estado-Maior do Exército. Governador de Macau
(1974-79). Antigo director do Instituto de Altos Estudos Militares e do
Instituto da Defesa Nacional
Mark Rutte’s fourth cabinet: what we know and has been leaked so far
Mark Rutte’s fourth cabinet: what we know and has
been leaked so far
Politics
December 31, 2021 Paleis Noordeinde. Photo: Txllxt TxllxT via Wikimedia Commons
More names of both potential and confirmed
ministers in Mark Rutte’s fourth cabinet have been emerging and there are some
surprises among them. D66 leader Sigrid Kaag will not only be the Netherlands’
first female finance minister, but has brought in academic Robbert Dijkgraaf,
known for his popular science lectures on television, as education, welfare and
culture minister. Ernst Kuipers, head of the Erasmus medical centre and the
acute hospital care association, is set to replace Hugo de Jonge as health
minister, also on behalf of D66. Kuipers has become a familiar face on
television during the coronavirus pandemic. Questions have also been asked
about the appointment of Dilan Yesilgöz to the heavyweight job of justice
minister. Yesilgöz joined the cabinet several months ago as junior economic
affairs minister and has no experience in the legal field – making her the
first justice minister without a degree in law. ADVERTISING As yet it is
unclear which job – either foreign affairs or home affairs – will go to CDA
leader and outgoing finance minister Wopke Hoekstra. Both positions are for the
Christian Democrats. Rutte will start his meetings with individual ministers
next week and the new cabinet will pose with the king on the steps of the
Noordeinde palace in the heart of The Hague on Monday, January 10. What we know
so far: *not confirmed ** new post Prime minister Mark Rutte (VVD) will lead
his fourth cabinet, made up of himself plus 19 ministers and nine junior
ministers. Finance Minister of Finance: Sigrid Kaag (D66) Junior minister for
tax (CDA) Junior minister for benefits and customs: Aukje de Vries (VVD)**
Foreign affairs Minister of foreign affairs (CDA) Minister for foreign trade
and development aid: Liesje Schreinemachter (VVD) Justice and security Minister
of justice and security: Dilan Yesilgöz (VVD) Minister for legal protection
(D66) Junior minister for asylum and immigration: Eric van der Burg (VVD) Home
affairs Minister of home and kingdom affairs (CDA) Minister for housing: Hugo
de Jonge (CDA)* ** Junior minister for kingdom affairs and digitalization
(D66)* Education, culture and science Minister of education, culture and
science: Robbert Dijkgraaf (D66)* Minister for schools: Dennis Wiersma (VVD)
Junior minister of culture and media issues (D66) Defence Minister of defence:
Kajsa Ollongren (D66)* Junior minister of defence: Christophe van der Maat
(VVD) Infrastructure and waterways Minister of infrastructure and waterways:
Mark Harbers (VVD) Junior minister of infrastructure and waterways (CDA)
Economic affairs and climate Minister of economic affairs and climate: Micky
Adriaansens (VVD) Minister for climate and energy: Rob Jetten (D66) ** Junior
minister of mines (the Groningen gas problem): Hans Vijlbrief (D66) **
Agriculture and nature Minister of agriculture, nature and food quality: Henk
Staghouwer (CU) Minister for nature and nitrogen issues: Christianne van der
Wal (VVD)** Social affairs and employment Minister of social affairs and
employment (CDA) Minister for poverty strategy, participation and pensions:
Carola Schouten (CU)** Health, welfare and sport Minister of health, welfare and
sport: Ernst Kuipers (D66)* Minister for long term care and sport: Conny Helder
(VVD) Junior minister for youth and prevention: Maarten van Ooijen (CU)
Ministers of something control a budget and effectively run the department
while ministers for something are charged with a particular project and are
part of the cabinet. Junior ministers (staatsecretarissen) are not members of
the cabinet. This list will be updated as more positions are confirmed.
Read more
at DutchNews.nl:
THE END OF NATURE by Bill McKibben'
THE END OF
NATURE
http://billmckibben.com/end-of-nature.html
Reissued on
the tenth anniversary of its publication, this classic work on our
environmental crisis features a new introduction by the author, reviewing both
the progress and ground lost in the fight to save the earth.
This
impassioned plea for radical and life-renewing change is today still considered
a groundbreaking work in environmental studies. McKibben's argument that the
survival of the globe is dependent on a fundamental, philosophical shift in the
way we relate to nature is more relevant than ever. McKibben writes of our
earth's environmental cataclysm, addressing such core issues as the greenhouse
effect, acid rain, and the depletion of the ozone layer. His new introduction
addresses some of the latest environmental issues that have risen during the
1990s. The book also includes an invaluable new appendix of facts and figures
that surveys the progress of the environmental movement.
More than
simply a handbook for survival or a doomsday catalog of scientific prediction,
this classic, soulful lament on Nature is required reading for nature
enthusiasts, activists, and concerned citizens alike.
Joe Manchin Has Wrecked the Biden Presidency—Perhaps He’ll Also Liberate It
Joe Manchin Has Wrecked the Biden
Presidency—Perhaps He’ll Also Liberate It
The need to appease the West Virginia senator is gone
now, and not just on the climate.
By Bill
McKibben
December
20, 2021
Manchin didn’t just derail Joe Biden’s
legislative agenda; he also kept the President from using another suite of powers
that belong to the executive alone.
“I’ve tried
everything humanly possible. I can’t get there,” Joe Manchin said. “This is a
no on this legislation. I have tried everything I know to do.” And with that pathetic
brushoff—he sounded like a feckless TV bachelor explaining why he couldn’t hand
his rose to a hopeful contestant—the West Virginia senator put the kibosh on
the Build Back Better bill, and with it pretty much all the legislative
priorities of the White House.
There will
be endless analyses of this breakup because it’s so devastating: what Manchin
really did was kill momentum for a different kind of country, which began to
build with Bernie Sanders’s 2016 run for the Presidency. That campaign and its
2020 successors (including Elizabeth Warren’s Presidential bid) uncovered a
deep progressive streak in what was supposed to be a center-right country;
Biden got the Presidency but Bernie got the bill, a serious return to the days
of L.B.J. and the idea that big government can solve problems.
The spotlight must now turn to the rich men Ghislaine Maxwell trafficked girls for
The spotlight must now turn to the rich men
Ghislaine Maxwell trafficked girls for
Gaby
Hinsliff
The woman who procured girls for Jeffrey Epstein and
his friends will die in prison – but most of the men involved still walk free
Thu 30 Dec 2021 18.20 GMT
Ghislaine
Maxwell is going to jail, and for a very long time indeed. Prince Andrew’s good
friend of many decades, and Donald Trump’s regular guest at his Florida
retreat, has been convicted of grooming and trafficking girls for sex in a
verdict that will reverberate through the highest reaches of the transatlantic
establishment. No more invites to Balmoral for the woman who turned vulnerable
teenagers into rich men’s sexual playthings, and no more hobnobbing with
friendly newspaper editors either. No more private jets or haughty instructions
to staff to keep their mouths shut, even as they were picking up discarded
vibrators from the bedroom floor. And presumably no more public sympathy of the
kind Rachel Johnson expressed recently in the Spectator, fondly recalling
Ghislaine’s “naughty eyes” as she flirted with a young Boris Johnson at Oxford,
back in the days when none of them had ever heard of the paedophile Jeffrey
Epstein. For all that Maxwell’s lawyers sought to paint her accusers as
gold-diggers chasing damages from Epstein’s estate, the lesson many will draw
from this case is that the rich are far more often protected by their money and
connections than rendered vulnerable by them.
Well, now
the world can finally see the seedy billionaire and his predatory girlfriend
for what they were. Much like the guilty verdict handed to Harvey Weinstein
almost two years ago, the result goes some way to restoring faith in the
battered principle that nobody should be above the law. Yet there’s something
profoundly unsatisfying about it nonetheless. That the woman who procured girls
for Epstein and his wealthy friends will now die in prison, while the men
involved remain either free to live their lives or (in Epstein’s case) beyond
the reach of any mortal judge, provokes a nagging sense of unfinished business.
It goes
without saying that Ghislaine Maxwell is not the victim here. Although her
lawyers made much of the fact that Epstein’s prison suicide left her to carry
the can for his crimes, suggesting rage at him had been unfairly projected on
to her, the prosecution argued more convincingly that she was in fact critical
to the enterprise. A lone middle-aged man asking teenage girls to visit his
ranch is creepy, but the same invitation from a couple feels respectable, even
benevolent. From an early age, we drum into children the idea that if they’re
lost or scared they should seek help from a police officer first and, failing
that, a woman. The girls Maxwell lured into her boyfriend’s clutches were reassured
by an older woman’s presence and it’s the betrayal of that female trust that
feels so monstrous. While these vulnerable teenagers looked to her for support,
she was grooming them for sexual exploitation, normalising the perverted
anything-goes culture inside his mansion. Strip away the yachts and the
servants and all the other trappings of a billionaire lifestyle, and there is
frighteningly little separating Maxwell from that tiny but grotesque pantheon
of female offenders seemingly so desperate to be loved that they collude in
their partners’ abusive fantasies, even to the point of helping persuade
someone else’s daughter into a car.
We may
never know whether Maxwell got her own kicks from this twisted game or whether
she was simply too damaged to resist it, conditioned perhaps as friends have
suggested by a childhood in the shadow of her bullying father, the late tycoon
Robert Maxwell. But the “poor little rich girl” thesis sits uneasily with some
of the stories her accusers told in court, which imply a woman accustomed to
dealing with problems as only the rich can: by paying someone to make them go
away.
Kate, who
was 17 when she first met the couple, recalled Maxwell complaining about
Epstein’s voracious sexual appetite and asking “if I knew anybody who could
come and give Jeffrey a blowjob because it was a lot for her to do”, much as
she might seek recommendations for a butler or a pool boy – except in this case
it was imperative they be young. Carolyn, who was 14 when she was first paid to
give Epstein one of his infamously sexualised massages, described how Maxwell
felt her breasts and bottom much as if she were checking over livestock for
sale, and concluded she had a “great body for Mr Epstein and his friends”. And
it’s on those nameless “friends” that the spotlight must now fall.
First and
most obviously in the firing line are the men against whom direct allegations
have been made, chief among them Prince Andrew. Virginia Giuffre, who is
currently attempting to bring a civil suit against the prince accusing him of a
sexual assault he has vehemently and repeatedly denied, can only be encouraged
by a verdict she welcomed with a pointed tweet, arguing that “Maxwell did not
act alone. Others must be held accountable.” Whether her lawsuit succeeds or
fails, however, the unmasking of his good friend Ghislaine as a convicted sex
trafficker makes it almost impossible to envisage a way back to royal
ribbon-cutting duties for the prince.
But there
are plenty more high-profile men who flew on Epstein’s planes, enjoyed his
lavish parties, even stayed overnight in one of those mansions hung with tacky
erotic art, and say they saw nothing amiss. Was he simply so discreet that
nobody could possibly have suspected a thing? Or could it be that a
predilection for teenage girls simply didn’t seem all that shocking, inside a
rich man’s world where trading in an ageing first wife for someone barely older
than your daughter is no big deal?
Meanwhile,
in the US, there are disturbing questions to answer about a long, oddly
flat-footed investigation into Epstein that left victims fearing they would
never get their day in court and conspiracy theorists emerging to fill a
judicial vacuum. That Maxwell held her tongue even when she eventually came to
trial, refusing to testify in her own defence in a way that meant she could be
asked no incriminating questions about the household names peppering the
victims’ testimony, has only encouraged the latter.
Some still
hope she might share whatever she knows now, given the conviction has left her
with nothing much to lose. The family’s decision to appeal makes that unlikely
at least in the near future, and it remains to be seen whether a woman who has
traded on her connections all her life is capable even now of turning on them.
But she cannot be the only one who knows more than she is telling about that
tainted circle through which so many powerful men have moved. Justice is surely
neither done, nor seen to be done, until all their dirty little secrets are
out.
Gaby
Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist
Air Travel Is No Holiday as Covid and Storms Cancel Flights
Air Travel Is No Holiday as Covid and Storms
Cancel Flights
Airlines and passengers are ending the year with many
of their plans upended. And New Year’s weekend may be bumpy, too.
By Niraj
Chokshi and Heather Murphy
Dec. 30,
2021
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/30/business/flights-cancelled.html
Airlines
may have thought their pandemic troubles were behind them in the fall as a coronavirus
wave subsided and travelers increasingly took to the skies. But a new virus
surge and winter storms have left the carriers and their passengers in a
holiday mess.
Heading
into the New Year’s weekend, when return flights will produce another crest in
air travel, airlines have been canceling more than 1,000 flights a day to, from
or within the United States. Carriers and their employees say the latest
chapter of the pandemic, the Omicron variant, has cut deeply into the ability
to staff flights, even though a vast majority of crew members are vaccinated.
“I’ve never
seen a meltdown like this in my life,” said Angelo Cucuzza, the director of
organizing at the Transport Workers Union, which represents flight attendants
at JetBlue. “They just can’t keep up with the amount of folks that are testing
positive.”
JetBlue has
been one of the airlines hardest hit, canceling 17 percent of its flights on
Thursday, according to the air travel data site FlightAware. The carrier said
Wednesday that it would cut about 1,280 flights through mid-January, citing the
rise in virus cases in the Northeast, where its operations and crews are
concentrated.
And then
there was the weather, always a volatile element in holiday travel but
particularly challenging in recent days — notably in the Pacific Northwest,
where heavy snowfall and record low temperatures grounded planes last weekend.
The next
few days may be just as frustrating. Storms in Southern California and the
Northwest could combine to dump snow on airline hubs in Denver and Chicago,
with severe thunderstorms threatening Dallas Fort Worth International Airport,
too, according to Dan DePodwin, director of forecast operations at AccuWeather.
Alaska
Airlines, whose main hub is Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, went so far
as to suggest that people put off nonessential travel until the new year. The
carrier was hit hard again Thursday, with 14 percent of its flights canceled,
as Seattle got more snow.
As many as
10 million people may fly from Thursday through Monday, according to
Transportation Security Administration estimates. For months, airlines have
been preparing reserves of workers for the holiday crush. But those measures
were inadequate in a fast-changing situation, and many passengers were
frustrated.
“Even
though it’s been two years with Covid, it does not seem like they have this
figured out,” said Sabine Malloy, whose plan to rendezvous with her boyfriend
in Alaska to see the northern lights was upended on Tuesday when both their
flights on Delta Air Lines — hers from Southern California, his from Denver —
were canceled. Delta told them that it could not rebook them for several days,
she said, so they canceled their plans — after her boyfriend had driven seven
hours from South Dakota for his flight.
Daily
business updates The latest coverage of
business, markets and the economy, sent by email each weekday. Get it sent to
your inbox.
Trying to
change plans before departing was also daunting. A traveler trying to rebook a
family trip on American Airlines encountered a recording saying to expect a
four-hour wait for a callback from an agent.
Some say
airlines shoulder some of the blame for the turmoil. The industry received $54
billion in federal aid to keep workers employed throughout the pandemic,
assistance that came with a ban on layoffs. But carriers were able to thin
their ranks by offering buyouts and early-retirement packages to thousands of
workers.
Airlines
started hiring again as the travel rebound took off this year, but most have
yet to fully restore their work forces: The industry employed nearly 413,000
people in October, down almost 9 percent from the same month in 2019, according
to federal data. Airlines have had trouble turning a profit as passenger
volumes remain about 15 percent below prepandemic levels.
The
industry looked to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in recent
days for a partial solution to its staffing problems, lobbying for the 10-day
isolation period recommended for those infected with the coronavirus to be
reduced to five days. Some scientists, unaffiliated with airlines, made a
similar suggestion to bolster strained work forces in other realms, like
hospitals.
On Monday,
the C.D.C. shifted its guidance to five days of isolation for people whose
symptoms have ended or are abating, followed by five days wearing a mask. The
agency said the change was motivated by findings that the coronavirus was
mostly transmitted one to two days before symptoms appear and two to three days
afterward.
On Tuesday,
in a memo seen by The New York Times, JetBlue told employees that it would
expect those “who have no symptoms, or whose symptoms are improving, to come
back to work after five days.” Crew members may remain on leave if they provide
a doctor’s note, but they won’t be paid as if they were working, according to
Mr. Cucuzza of the Transport Workers Union.
Asked for
comment, JetBlue said, “The health and safety of our crew members and customers
remains our top priority as we work through this pandemic.”
Delta is
providing five days’ sick leave for infected workers, with two additional paid
sick days if they choose to be tested on Day 5 and the results are positive.
The shorter
isolation time is fueling a debate in the industry. The Association of Flight
Attendants-CWA, which represents nearly 50,000 flight attendants at 17
airlines, urged maintaining a 10-day isolation period in a letter to airlines
on Tuesday.
“We believe
this is the wrong move for aviation as it accepts that infectious people will
be put back on the job or flying as passengers on our planes,” Sara Nelson, the
union’s president, wrote. Several flight attendants interviewed expressed
concerns that potentially contagious colleagues might return to work without
being tested.
Airlines
always prepare for turmoil, particularly around the holidays, when bad winter
weather in one place can knock an entire system off balance. But the industry
has been hit especially hard this year.
After two
airlines, American and Southwest, canceled thousands of flights in October
because of fierce weather and a brief shortage of air traffic controllers, they
vowed to address the problems, offering bonuses to encourage employees to work
throughout the holiday period, stepping up hiring and pruning flight plans. Both
have avoided widespread cancellations this holiday season.
“We
realized that we have got to make sure that we have staffing in place,” David
Seymour, American’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. The airline
recalled several thousand flight attendants from leave last month and this
month and hired almost 600 more.
When chaos
strikes, airlines engage in a complicated choreography to get out of it.
The main
goal, airlines and aviation experts say, is to minimize the effect on
passengers. But that’s easier said than done.
Alaska
Airlines spent months laying plans for this holiday season, investing in staff
and equipment to deal with the winter weather and lining up backup flight
crews, according to Constance von Muehlen, its chief operating officer.
The airline
managed staff calling in sick at high rates by offering extra pay for others to
fill in, but sustained snowfall and record low temperatures in the Seattle area
forced it to cancel nearly one-third of its flights on Sunday, about one-quarter
on Monday and about one-fifth on Tuesday.
“Once you
get your day off poorly, there’s nothing you can do to catch up,” Ms. von
Muehlen said.
On Tuesday,
the airline issued a stark announcement. Alaska would cut about 20 percent of
flights out of Seattle in the coming days to allow extra time to de-ice planes.
It also “strongly” urged customers to delay nonessential travel until after
this weekend.
“Our values
guided our decision,” she said. “We need to be as realistic as possible in what
we will be able to operate and to let people know, as difficult as it is for us
to do that.”
Getting
flight crews in place can be especially tricky, with workers dispersed
throughout the country and subject to various regulations. Flight attendants
are generally required to have nine hours of rest between shifts, for example.
The Omicron
variant has only confounded that already complicated process.
Capt. James
Belton, a spokesman for the roughly 13,500 United Airlines pilots in the Air
Line Pilots Association, confirmed that the variant is creating challenges.
“Our sick
calls are above normal,” he said. Many pilots have helped fill gaps by picking
up additional shifts, he said, but they are limited to flying 100 hours a month
under federal law.
Operations
on the ground are also being affected. The Federal Aviation Administration
warned on Thursday that rising infections among employees, including air
traffic control staff, might result in delays.
The
Transportation Security Administration said that it was concerned about rising
virus infections, too, but that it had adequate staffing. Average wait times in
airport security lines were about five minutes in recent days, a spokesman
said.
Getting
through security, of course, is no guarantee that the rest of the trip will be
smooth.
Elizabeth
Barnhisel and her husband were heading off on a delayed honeymoon when a
canceled connection forced an unexpected overnight layover on Tuesday at
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Entering a baggage claim area, they found
what looked like hundreds of bags lined up and crowds of miserable people —
some crying, some napping, because they had been waiting so long for their
bags.
Every few
hours, someone would offer a different reason for the fiasco: frozen carousels,
Omicron, weather. After about 10 hours, Ms. Barnhisel’s bag arrived from across
the airport.
The couple
eventually made it to their destination, Vancouver, but it was not the
honeymoon experience Ms. Barnhisel had counted on. “We’re flabbergasted,” she
said. “We definitely took a risk by taking this trip. But at the end of the
day, we’ve got to get back to normal somehow.”
Lauren
Hirsch contributed reporting.
Niraj
Chokshi covers the business of transportation, with a focus on autonomous
vehicles, airlines and logistics. @nirajc
Heather
Murphy is a reporter on the Travel desk. She welcomes tips, questions and
complaints about traveling during the pandemic. @heathertal
Biden and Putin exchange warnings during phone call amid rising Ukraine tensions
Biden and Putin exchange warnings during phone
call amid rising Ukraine tensions
Talks represent pair’s second conversation this month
Russia massing tens of thousands of troops near border
David Smith
Washington bureau chief
@smithinamerica
Thu 30 Dec
2021 22.32 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/30/biden-putin-call-russia-us-ukraine-tensions
Joe Biden
and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin have exchanged warnings over the crisis
in Ukraine during a 50-minute phone call that did little to lower the political
temperature, according to their governments.
Russia has
alarmed the US and its allies by massing tens of thousands of troops near its
border with Ukraine over the past two months. This follows its seizure of
Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula in 2014 and its backing of separatists in eastern
Ukraine.
Thursday’s
talks, requested by Putin, were the leaders’ second conversation this month
but, the White House said, consisted of both men restating their positions –
including Biden warning of severe consequences if Putin decides to invade.
“President
Biden urged Russia to de-escalate tensions with Ukraine,” said Jen Psaki, the
White House press secretary, in a statement. “He made clear that the United
States and its allies and partners will respond decisively if Russia further
invades Ukraine.”
In a
conference call with reporters, a senior administration official added that
Biden had laid out “two paths”: one of diplomacy and deescalation, the other of
deterrence “including serious costs and consequences” such as economic
sanctions, strengthening Nato’s force posture and military assistance to
Ukraine.
The
Kremlin, meanwhile, insisted that Putin had used the call to issue a threat of
his own, telling Biden that new sanctions could totally rupture ties between
Russia and the US and represent a colossal mistake.
Yuri
Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy adviser, was quoted by the Reuters news agency
as saying: “Our president immediately responded that if the west decides in
this or other circumstances to impose these unprecedented sanctions which have
been mentioned then that could lead to a complete breakdown in ties between our
countries and cause the most serious damage to relations between Russia and the
west.”
Ushakov
added: “Our president also mentioned that it would be a mistake that our
descendants would see as a huge error.”
Biden, who
is spending the week in his home state of Delaware, spoke to Putin from his
home near Wilmington. The White House distributed a picture of the president
speaking to the Russian leader from a desk lined with family photos.
The call
came ahead of a US-Russia security meeting in Geneva on 9 and 10 January,
followed by a Russia-Nato session on 12 January, and a broader conference
including Moscow, Washington and other European countries on 13 January.
In the
media conference call, a White House official described the conversation as
“serious and substantive” but focused on setting the tone and tenor for the
diplomatic engagements to come rather than breaking new ground.
The
official also acknowledged that Putin offered little clarity as to whether he
plans to invade or back down. “We’re not going to draw conclusions and there
were certainly no declarations as to intentions from this conversation.
“But
regardless, our focus is really on actions and on indicators, not on words at
this point, so we’re going to continue to monitor very closely the movement and
build-up of Russian forces on the Ukraine border and prepare ourselves for
whatever decision ultimately is made by the Russian president.”
Putin, who
held a video call with Biden on 7 December, has compared the current tensions
to the cold-war era Cuban missile crisis in 1962. He denies planning to attack
Ukraine and insists that Russia has the right to move its troops on its own
soil.
Moscow has
called for legally binding guarantees that Nato will not expand further
eastwards and certain offensive weapons will not be deployed to Ukraine or
other neighbouring countries. Washington regards some of the demands as
non-starters.
Antony
Blinken, the US secretary of state, spoke on Wednesday with Ukrainian president
Volodymyr Zelenskiy. State department spokesperson Ned Price said Blinken
“reiterated the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence,
sovereignty, and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s military buildup
on Ukraine’s borders”.
quinta-feira, 30 de dezembro de 2021
Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail, by Ray Dalio
Principles for Dealing with the Changing World
Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail
Author(s):
Ray Dalio
Release
Date:
November
30, 2021
Reviewed by:
Craig R.
Roach
“Dalio’s
philosophical foundation for choosing investments is a sprawling, holistic
study of how the world has worked over hundreds of years of history.”
Ray Dalio
is among the world’s most successful investors, and in his new book, Principles
for Dealing with the Changing World Order, he reveals how he and his colleagues
at Bridgewater Associates choose investments for the future. His approach,
however, is not what you would get from the standard-issue Wall Street stock
picker. Dalio’s philosophical foundation for choosing investments is a
sprawling, holistic study of how the world has worked over hundreds of years of
history. What he found is that dominant countries—or what he calls “empires”—
inevitably rise and fall over long segments of time. Nothing is forever,
including, as Dalio documents, America’s position as the leading world power
today.
The early
part of the book is all about convincing the reader that these cycles happen,
and that they make all the difference in which countries are rising and which
are falling at any point in time. Dalio focuses on three major historical
transitions: the rise of the Netherlands and its replacement by the United
Kingdom; the replacement of the United Kingdom by the United States; and the
pending (at least possible) replacement of the United States by China.
In his
“Archetypical Big Cycle,” Dalio lists the forces that drive an empire’s rise:
“a) relatively low levels of indebtedness; b) relatively small wealth, values,
and political gaps between people; c) people working effectively together to
produce prosperity; d) good education and infrastructure; e) strong and capable
leadership; and f) a peaceful world order that is guided by one or more
dominant world powers.”
He also
succinctly states that three forces might drive the American empire’s decline.
The first is a steadily increasing debt burden that financially weakens the
empire. The second is a widening gap in household income and wealth that
incites internal conflicts. The third is a rising external rival who is on
course to topple the declining but-still-ruling empire.
Dalio fills
many pages of his book with explanations and insights on the full impact of
money and credit on the rise and fall of empires. He explains three monetary
policies the US has used to boost the economy that have now become problematic.
The first policy is for the Federal Reserve to lower short-term interest rates;
the problem here is that short-term interest rates are already at zero. The
second is to lower long-term interest rates by buying long-term bonds so the
yield will fall; this “quantitative easing” is already substantially in place
with the Federal Reserve buying billons of dollar of bonds each month.
The third
policy is for the Federal Reserve essentially to print money and buy Treasury
bills and bonds directly; this “debt monetization” has become the policy of
choice in the US today. Monetization of debt has its risks in the context of
the fall of empires. As noted, short-term interest rates are at zero, so investors
are driven to purchase assets such as gold, property, and stocks, which drive
up asset prices; this exacerbates the politically sensitive income and wealth
gaps because only those who can afford the assets see an increase in wealth.
Moreover,
the US dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency—the favorite currency for
safely storing cash. If the US government drives the value of the dollar down
by printing more dollars, there is the risk that the US could lose its role as
the primary reserve currency and, thus, further undercut the ability of the US
to borrow. Dalio argues that the US has too much debt and writes “what does
that mean for the dollar (most importantly) and the other more minor reserve
currencies? Will they decline and others replace them? Most probably they will
decline analogously to past reserve currency declines: slowly for a long time
and then very quickly.”
Dalio also
highlights the essential link between monetized debt and productivity gains won
through technological innovation. He argues that all this debt must be spent on
investments that boost productivity: “an essential ingredient for success is
that the debt and money that are created are used to produce productivity gains
and favorable returns on investment, rather than just being given away.” If an
empire fails to do that “the money will be devalued to the point that it won’t
leave the government or anyone else with much buying power.”
Principles
for Dealing with the Changing World Order is not an easy read; it is a thicket
of historical discussion permeated with graph-after-graph of evidence on each
cycle. Despite this obstacle, Dalio’s balanced, often unique, and worrisome
analysis of the possible outcome of the now intense rivalry between the US and
China is timely. This rivalry resonates in the headlines every day, and Dalio
writes that “emotions have been running so high between the US and China that
many people have urged [Dalio] not to publish this chapter [on China].”
Dalio sees
the two countries in a tie. He writes that “China is now roughly tied with the
US in being the leading power in trade, economic output, and innovation and
technology and it is a strong and quickly rising military and educational
power. It is an emerging power in the financial sector but is lagging as a
reserve currency and financial center.”
He is
unique in his explanations of the differences in philosophy for the two countries;
but those differences are not what you expect. For example, Dalio opines that
“America is run from the bottom up (e.g., democracy) and optimized for the
individual; China is run from the top down and optimized for the collective.”
Dalio explains further that democracy has no roots in China, but capitalism (at
least meritocracy) does.
Finally,
Dalio argues that the United States and China are already engaged in “wars” on
seven fronts. Dalio writes that history has “taught us that there are five major
types of wars: 1) trade/economic wars, 2) technology wars, 3) geopolitical
wars, 4) capital wars, and 5) military wars. To these [Dalio] would add 6)
culture wars and 7) the wars with ourselves.” These war fronts, Dalio argues,
should be “recognized as interrelated conflicts that are extensions of one
bigger evolving conflict.”
Dalio wants
to define these different forms of conflict so that the world can avoid
escalation to a hot war. For example, with trade/economic wars, Dalio concludes
that “we haven’t seen the US-China trade war taken very far.” However, he
identifies high-risk actions when he writes that “the most dangerous part of
the trade/economic war comes when countries cut others off from essential
imports.” He writes that the US could cut off “China’s imports of oil, other
needed commodities, technologies.” And for its part “China could escalate by
cutting off companies like General Motors (which sells more cars in China than
in the US) and Apple.”
In
conclusion, Dalio identifies a positive force, new technology, that can offset
the negative forces in all the wars. He writes that “humanity’s inventiveness
will probably lead to great advances while the debt/economic cycle, the
internal order cycle, the external order cycle, and worsening acts of nature
will almost certainly pose problems. In other words, there will be a battle
between humanity’s inventiveness and these other challenges.” The pandemic
proves his point. Biotech saved our lives with vaccines. InfoTech saved our
jobs with platforms that enabled e-commerce and remote work.
Craig R.
Roach is an author of narrative nonfiction. His book Simply Electrifying: The
Technology that Transformed the World, from Benjamin Franklin to Elon Musk
(BenBella Books, 2017) won a 2018 Axiom Business Book Award Gold Medal.
Amsterdam cancels anti-Covid rule demo, citing public order fears
Amsterdam cancels anti-Covid rule demo, citing
public order fears
CoronaSociety
December 30, 2021
An
anti-coronavirus measure rally in Amsterdam earlier this year. Photo:
DutchNews.nl
A
demonstration against the coronavirus rules which had been scheduled to take
place on January 2 has been banned because the organisers ‘refused’ to
cooperate with plans to ensure it could take place safely. The decision to ban
the protest was taken by the city’s mayor Femke Halsema, together with the
police and public prosecution department. The city said in a press release that
the organisers of the demonstration, who had claimed 25,000 people would
attend, had indicated they were ‘out for confrontation’. ‘The police also have
strong indications that people and groups who were out for trouble and prepared
to use violence were planning to mix in with the demonstrators,’ the statement
said. The demonstration could have gone ahead if the organisers agreed to limit
numbers to 3,500 and not to march through the city. Given they were unwilling
to do this, there was ‘no choice other than to ban the demonstration in the
interests of public health and to prevent disorder.’ The Omicron variant of
coronavirus is spreading rapidly in the Dutch capital and now accounts for 80%
of cases. Freedom ‘Amsterdammers are staying home as much as possible,
companies have been forced to close their doors, theatres and cinemas are
shut,’ Halsema is quoted as saying by the Parool. While the freedom to
demonstrate is an important right, she and the police had ‘no confidence that
the organisers would ensure the demonstration was properly organised.’ The
Parool said that a spokesman for the mayor said the decision was unconnected to
the planned strike by riot police which was set to coincide with the demonstration.
Organiser Michel Reijinga told the paper the decision was scandalous and that
he had offered his full cooperation. Several hundred people were arrested in
riots across the Netherlands last January after the curfew was introduced.
There was more trouble, sparked by organised troublemakers in Rotterdam, in
November.
Read more
at DutchNews.nl:
Amsterdam
verbiedt demonstratie ‘Samen voor NL’ op 2 januari
https://www.amsterdam.nl/nieuws/nieuwsoverzicht/verbod-demonstratie/
30 december 2021
De Amsterdamse driehoek (gemeente, politie en OM) verbiedt
de aangekondigde demonstratie Samen voor NL van zondag 2 januari 2022 op het
Museumplein.
De driehoek was ondanks de lockdown bereid de demonstratie
te faciliteren onder de voorwaarde dat er een maximaal aantal demonstranten zou
zijn en dat de duur en de vorm beperkt zouden blijven. Met een maximaal aantal
van 3.500 mensen zou er veilig op 1,5 meter afstand op het Museumplein kunnen
worden gedemonstreerd.
Organisatie weigert medewerking
De organisatie van deze demonstratie heeft aangegeven 25.000
demonstranten te verwachten en door de stad te willen trekken. De organisatie
is niet bereid mee te werken aan een veilig en ordelijk verloop en heeft
aangekondigd de confrontatie op te willen zoeken en de regels te gaan
overtreden. Ook heeft de politie sterke aanwijzingen dat er personen en groepen
aanwezig zullen zijn die uit zijn op ongeregeldheden en bereid zijn om geweld
te gebruiken. In het belang van de volksgezondheid en om wanordelijkheden te
voorkomen, ziet de driehoek zich daarom genoodzaakt de demonstratie te
verbieden.
Abriu portas da Europa a imigrantes ilegais. Tribunal diz-se impotente para punir advogada como merecia
JUSTIÇA
Abriu portas da Europa a imigrantes ilegais. Tribunal
diz-se impotente para punir advogada como merecia
Sentença acusa arguida de ser indiferente à crise
humanitária que continua a matar milhares de refugiados que tentam chegar à
Europa.
Ana Henriques
29 de Dezembro de
2021, 23:26
Questões formais
impediram uma juíza de punir de forma mais severa uma advogada que se dedicou
durante dois anos a abrir as portas da Europa a dezenas de imigrantes ilegais,
a maior parte dos quais continuam neste momento em paradeiro incerto. Proferida
este mês, a sentença que a condenou a cinco anos de prisão efectiva sublinha
que lidava na maior parte das vezes com adolescentes menores e que demonstrou
“total indiferença” pela crise humanitária que continua a matar milhares de
migrantes e refugiados que tentam chegar à Europa.
Desde que
ingressou na advocacia, em 2015 que Marisa Monteiro, hoje com 42 anos, era
frequentadora assídua do aeroporto de Lisboa, mais propriamente do Centro de
Instalação Temporária, local onde ficam detidos os passageiros sem condições para
entrar em território nacional. Até 2018, altura em que o Serviço de
Estrangeiros e Fronteiras (SEF) a confrontou com as suas suspeitas, entregou
mais de cem pedidos de asilo pelos quais cobrou aos requerentes entre mil e
1700 euros cada um. O estratagema a que recorreu, segundo ficou provado em
tribunal, baseava-se acima de tudo na lentidão da justiça portuguesa.
Depois de alegar
perante o SEF que os seus clientes, na sua maioria adolescentes menores, eram
pessoas que viajavam para Portugal fugidas de perseguições políticas, sexuais e
religiosas nos seus países de origem, ficava à espera da recusa do visto de
permanência em território nacional, uma vez que nenhum deles conseguia provar
essa condição. Na realidade, estes jovens oriundos sobretudo do Senegal e
países vizinhos queriam juntar-se a familiares seus residentes em França e
noutros países europeus por questões económicas. Quando chegava a recusa de
permanência em território nacional Marisa Monteiro recorria sistematicamente da
decisão para os tribunais administrativos, ciente de que o recurso não seria
decidido no prazo máximo de 60 dias que a lei prevê que os candidatos a asilo
possam estar detidos. Quando finalmente os tribunais administrativos se
pronunciavam já os imigrantes tinham sido libertados e rumado além-fronteiras.
Segundo a
sentença, a arguida terá lucrado com esta actividade cerca de 130 mil euros,
uma vez que tinha de repartir os lucros com cúmplices que tinha nos países de
origem, e que lhe indicavam em que voos seguiam os candidatos a asilo e a que
horas chegavam ao aeroporto de Lisboa. A sua actuação tornou-se notada quer
pela quantidade de casos que conseguia angariar quer por apresentar
requerimentos em nome dos imigrantes antes mesmo de ter falado com eles no
Centro de Instalação Temporária. Muitos deles tinham embarcado com documentos
de identificação falsos ou roubados a compatriotas seus.
A decisão
judicial dá conta, entre outros casos, da situação de uma menor chamada
Marceline que chegou a Lisboa a 1 de Janeiro de 2017, nascida no Congo. Contou
às autoridades que tinha 15 anos e vinha do Senegal, onde se prostituía às
ordens de uma senhora que lhe dava abrigo e comida. Foi essa mulher, garantiu,
que a convenceu a viajar para a Europa, pagando-lhe a viagem e tratando-lhe da
documentação. Que não se preocupasse, porque teria alguém do sexo feminino à
sua espera na capital portuguesa. E assim era.
Por ser menor não
ficou no aeroporto: foi encaminhada para instalações do Centro Português de
Refugiados, donde saiu para voltar à prostituição. Viria a ser interceptada
pelas autoridades em Espanha num autocarro onde viajava acompanhada de um homem,
com destino a França. A advogada aconselhava sempre os imigrantes a abandonarem
Portugal pela via terrestre, por os controlos policiais serem menos eficazes do
que se viajassem por via aérea.
Para esconder das
autoridades o que ganhava com esta actividade, os pagamentos eram feitos ao
marido e a vários outros familiares através de agências de transferência de
dinheiro. Ao tribunal, justificou esta forma de trabalhar alegando que as duas
gravidezes que teve em pouco tempo, aliadas ao enorme volume de serviço, fez
com que tivesse tido de recorrer à sua ajuda. Nem esta nem outras explicações
que deu durante o julgamento convenceram a juíza, que acabou por a condenar por
50 crimes de auxílio à imigração ilegal.
A arguida terá lucrado com esta actividade cerca de 130
mil euros, uma vez que tinha de repartir os lucros com cúmplices que tinha nos
países de origem
Sucede que o
Ministério Público teve, durante a fase de inquérito do processo, expectativas
de punição mais baixas. Como considerou que todos estes casos correspondiam à
prática de um único crime – na forma continuada – remeteu o caso para um tipo
de tribunal, o chamado local criminal, que por lei só pode aplicar penas de
prisão até ao máximo de cinco anos. A juíza ainda tentou resolver o problema,
mas acabou por se conformar. Deixou, porém, escrito na sentença que a advogada
merecia ser condenada a sete anos e meio de cadeia, mas que estava impedida de
tomar semelhante decisão.
“A culpa da
arguida é elevadíssima, porquanto actuou durante um longo período de tempo e em
elevadíssimo número de vítimas”, observou. “Numa época de verdadeira crise
humanitária no que respeita a cidadãos estrangeiros que pretendem entrar no
continente europeu, muitos deles vítimas de pessoas como a arguida, a quem
pagam para arriscarem a vida no transporte, realizado por vezes em botes que,
naufragando, conduzem à morte, demonstrou, com a sua conduta, uma total
indiferença pela sorte destas pessoas, que podiam até ser vítimas de redes de
prostituição”.
O PÚBLICO tentou,
sem sucesso, falar com Marisa Monteiro.
