Shared posts

04 Aug 00:12

Prison Is a Great Place to Get Reading Done

I met Daniel Genis at a bookstore. It was March, and I was there to speak on a panel about Sergei Dovlatov, the comic novelist of late Soviet decay, and Genis came up to me afterward, wanting to talk about books. Books, it became clear, were something he knew about. Genis talks quickly and often, and his pale, insinuating eyes make him look like he’s in on a really stupendous secret. On that night, he wore a T-shirt pulled snugly over a substantial belly and an ill-fitting blazer. He had a good reason to be at the bookstore: his father is Alexander Genis, a collaborator of Dovlatov’s who happens to be one of the best-known nonfiction writers working in Russian; a collection of his essays is currently on Russia’s best-seller list. The younger Genis and I talked. It came out that our parents knew each other slightly, and we had gone to the same high school, and after a while I wondered out loud why we hadn’t met. The reason, he confided, was that some weeks earlier he had been released from prison, where he spent ten years and three months after pleading guilty to five charges of armed robbery. He also remarked, offhandedly, that his authentic education as a reader began not while he was a history major at N.Y.U. or working at a literary agency in Manhattan but at the Green Haven Correctional Facility, in Stormville, New York. There, he offered, he had read a thousand and forty-six books.

We stayed in touch, and, in the course of several dinners and many bottles of sulfurous mineral water from Brighton Beach, Genis filled in more details. He grew up in Washington Heights, in an apartment that, in the eighties and early nineties, doubled as a clubhouse for hard-drinking Soviet émigré writers and artists. His father—a cultural critic, essayist, and radio host whose place in Russian letters can be suggested by some unlikely melding of Bernard-Henri Lévy and Bill Bryson—presided over the steady flow of guests and vodka. With Dovlatov and the journalist Petr Vail, Alexander Genis edited the influential Russian-language weekly “The New American.” At the apartment on Ellwood Street, the men cooked and discussed art and politics and downed many toasts, and it often fell to the women—usually Genis’s wife, Irina, who worked for Pan Am—to clean up after them. Some visitors imbibed so heavily that the following morning they woke in the tub; a plastered Dovlatov once presented a five-year-old Daniel Genis with an air pistol. Genis fils sported a suit and earned allowance from his father in exchange for completing difficult books and translations in Russian. “As a young child, I was treated like a miniature adult,” he told me. “And I learned from an early age that as long as you were talented and artistically successful, your every transgression was forgiven.”

Genis’s social life in high school centered on the downtown punk scene and the music of the Wu Tang Clan, but in private he haunted antiquarian bookshops, combing the stacks for eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editions of Greek and Roman classics as well as Aquinas, Montesquieu, and Dante. By junior year, other books inspired him to dabble in drugs, and surround himself with those who took them. “Devouring Nietzsche, Burroughs, and the Beats was probably not the brightest idea for a teen-ager,” he remarked. In college, Genis began to buy cocaine from street dealers he knew in Washington Heights and resell it to fellow N.Y.U. students at downtown prices. The profits paid for more books, a semester in Copenhagen, travel around Europe, and a large rental on the corner of Second Street and Second Avenue, where, in 1999, he sold an ounce of cocaine to an undercover police officer. It was his first offense, and a lawyer managed to plea-bargain the charge down to a C felony and five years of probation, probably owing to what Genis summarizes as “white privilege and my youth.”

Genis hated having to ask his mother to post bail, but he wasn’t unduly concerned about his career prospects. “I always knew that I would work with books, and book people didn’t seem too concerned about past drug offenses,” he said. While in college, Genis interned with the publisher Applause Books, where he wrangled an editing credit on a film encyclopedia, and after graduating from N.Y.U.—a semester early and cum laude—he went to work for Nancy Love, a literary agent on the Upper East Side. He handled contracts and the slush pile. By the time he lost that job, two years later, a girlfriend had introduced him to injecting heroin. He discovered that he had become addicted while visiting Latvia with an uncle; he copped at the Riga train station, where the dealer offered to let him use a communal Soviet-era syringe that he carried in his coat. Back in New York, Genis married a Hungarian party promoter named Petra Szabo; for nearly a year after the wedding he managed to keep his habit a secret from her. He underwent detox and rehab, and even tried methadone, without success. The habit was costing him more than a hundred dollars a day and he was constantly broke. In 2003, while earning twenty-five dollars an hour as an S.A.T.-prep instructor with the Princeton Review, Genis owed five thousand dollars to a downtown heroin dealer, a Ukrainian with a violent reputation. “I became scared, especially for my wife,” he said. “In hindsight, I should have asked my parents to lend me the money.”

Instead, Genis embarked on a string of robberies that must rank as some of the most hapless in the city’s annals of crime. In August of that year, in the course of a week, he held up two stores and three pedestrians with a pocketknife, apologizing at length before running away. “I was just a terrible thief,” he told me. Two men foiled Genis’s attempt to mug them by throwing a pizza at him. One irate store owner—a petite woman who was shuttering a tea shop for the night—replied to his demand for money by demanding that he “get the fuck out.” Genis complied. By the week’s end, he had stolen enough to pay the dealer, and then finally managed to stamp out his addiction. He was clean for three months when a woman whom he had robbed spotted him on the street. Genis was handcuffed on the corner of Stanton and Bowery. An item about the arrest in the New York Post was headlined “‘Sorry Bandit’ Jailed in Polite Rob Spree.” Genis was still on probation, no one posted bail, and he spent the nine months prior to sentencing at Riker’s Island. In June, 2004, a judge gave him twelve years, ten of them mandatory.

Genis has lived in a dozen maximum- and medium-security prisons, a ringside seat to the pageant of the American penal system. While incarcerated, he clerked for a rabbi, took up bodybuilding (only to injure his back), witnessed a race riot and a murder, watched a man attempt to drown himself in a toilet, and ate a seagull prepared by a prison gourmet. He got to know Michael Alig, the “club-kid killer”; Robert Chambers, the “preppie killer”; and Ronald DeFeo, Jr., who murdered four siblings and his parents and inspired the novel “The Amityville Horror.” Mostly, though, Genis read. “Days in prison have a sameness to them, and my most meaningful and frequent conversations were with authors,” he said. He kept track of the books in a journal. Recently, he allowed me to peruse a stack of loose, mismatched pages crammed with his small, neat handwriting. Each book is numbered and described in entries that are essayistic yet succinct, a form Genis attributes to the uncertain supply of writing paper in prison. He finished the last book on the list—a memoir by Alig, which he liked—in January.

“I started out with books that helped me make sense of the situation around me,” Genis recalled, meaning books on imprisonment: he read “Papillon,” Dostoyevsky's “The House of the Dead,” Gulag narratives by Solzhenitsyn and Shalamov, “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” Albert Speer’s memoir of Spandau, and Ted Conover’s “Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing” (four pages of which were removed by prison authorities). Then he boned up on authoritarian regimes (“Awful stuff that made me feel better by comparison”): biographies of Pol Pot, Mao, and Pinochet; histories of the Khmer Rouge and the Cultural Revolution; and Goebbels’s diaries. Having entered prison as an atheist with a moral-relativist bent, Genis next took up the problem of good and evil, scouring Pascal, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, “Crime and Punishment,” and Knut Hamsun’s “Hunger.” Lubricated with an ample dose of science fiction by William Gibson, Frederik Pohl, and Philip K. Dick—“for relaxation”—Genis’s journal was just getting going.

“Reading in prison allowed me to follow my interests,” Genis said; some were essentially anthropological tangents inspired by friendships. After he began making pesto (“It involved a microwave”) with a former Franciscan monk who was a convicted child molester, Genis embarked on “The Little Flowers of St. Francis” and “Lolita.” A former member of the Black Liberation Army inspired him to pick up “Soul on Ice,” titles by Donald Goines and Frantz Fanon, and a history of the Rastafari movement. Conversations with the rabbi led to Martin Buber, Josephus, Spinoza, a book by the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson, countless pamphlets from Chabad, and even “A Guide for the Perplexed,” a twelfth-century epistolary work by Maimonides (Genis: “Completely interminable”). Somewhat improbably, a gay friend insisted that he update his reading on homosexuality (“Basically, it had been Chesterton and ‘Brideshead Revisited’”) with memoirs by David Sedaris and Augusten Burroughs as well as James Hamilton-Paterson’s “Cooking with Fernet Branca.” “People around me could see what I was reading, and I got a lot of questions about that one,” Genis said.

The Internet is off limits to prisoners, and the books were sometimes difficult to get. Genis’s father brought armfuls when he visited; some were ordered from print catalogues or interlibrary loan; others came from prison libraries, which Genis describes as typically “about fifteen thousand titles, heavy on James Patterson.” Scouring their superannuated collections allowed Genis to cultivate a penchant for authors rarely read today, and he whiled away weeks on Casanova, Jeremy Bentham, “The Prisoner of Zenda,” and the entire oeuvre of Richard Francis Burton, who translated “A Thousand and One Nights” and snuck into Mecca in disguise. “Prison allowed me to do that,” Genis said, sounding almost nostalgic.

Paging through the journal confirms that he read certain books simply because they were there. How else to explain entries for “Sumo: From Rite to Sport,” by P. L. Cuyler (“Author doesn’t admit there’s something ridiculous about sumo”); “Sport Supplement Review,” by Bill Phillips (“I was pleased to learn that creatine has no adverse effect on the kidneys”); “Hard Candy” by Andrew Vachss (“Still stupid”); “A Divine Revelation of Hell,” by Mary K. Baxter (“I was stuck in the clinic for five hours and ended up reading this whole book”); “Jackie, Oy!,” by Jackie Mason and Ken Gross (“He was born in Wisconsin!”); “Christina of Sweden” by Sven Stolpe (“Quite a character!”); “The Xenophobe’s Guide to the Russians,” by Vladimir Zhelvis (“Entirely composed of stereotypes, and entirely true”); “Sausage,” by Nichola Fletcher (“Overview of the world’s finest sausages”); “Pellucidar,” by Edgar Rice Burroughs (“The problem of gravity is never resolved”); and “The Great War: American Front,” by Harry Turtledove (“I refuse to read any more Turtledove”).

Aside from consuming The New Yorker, Harpers, and The Atlantic (“not the easiest magazines to give away in prison”) nose to tail, Genis lavished the bulk of his attention on serious fiction, especially the long, difficult novels that require ample motivation and time under the best of circumstances. He read Mann, James, Melville, Musil, Naipaul. He vanquished “Vanity Fair” and “Infinite Jest.” He read, and reread, the Russians, in Russian. He kept up with Chabon, Lethem, and Houellebecq. At first, Genis resisted “Ulysses,” but his father kept bringing it. “I argued that he wouldn’t have the willpower to get through it once he became a free man,” Alexander Genis told me. The reading solidified the sometimes fragile connection between father and son. “I don’t think my dad ever really accepted the reality of my imprisonment, and the books were something we both enjoyed and could discuss without arguing,” Daniel Genis said.

The seven volumes of Proust took Genis a year to finish. Much of it was spent in solitary confinement—he had been charged with “unauthorized exchange” after several prisoners “sold [him] their souls” for cups of coffee (“some Christian guards didn’t care for my sense of humor”). He read “In Search of Lost Time” alongside two academic guidebooks, full of notations in French, and a dictionary. He said that no other novel gave him as much appreciation for his time in prison. “Of course, we are memory artists as well…,” he wrote of prisoners in his journal, in the entry on “Time Regained.” “Everyone inside tries to make their time go by as quickly as possible and live entirely in the past,” he said. “But to kill your days is essentially to shorten your own life.” In prison, time was both an enemy and a resource, and Genis said that Proust convinced him that the only way to exist outside of it, however briefly, was to become a writer himself. He finished a novel, a piece of speculative fiction about a society where drugs have never been criminalized, titled “Narcotica.” Later, when he came across a character in a Murakami novel who says that one really has to be in jail to read Proust, Genis said that he laughed louder than he had in ten years.

Genis lives with Szabo—they remained married while he was in prison—near the Gowanus Canal. He has been getting the hang of Facebook and his smartphone, and is working on becoming a full-time journalist. Szabo is now a yoga instructor, and, the last time I visited them, she sat on the floor in a position that seemed to violate several anatomical imperatives. Genis pulled on a Marlboro 100. I asked what he was reading. “To tell you the truth,” he said, “I haven’t read a book since I’ve been out.”

Photograph: Spaarnestad Photo/Redux.

Bookmarked at brandizzi Delicious' sharing tag and expanded by Delicious sharing tag expander.
31 Jul 02:18

Why Bikes Make Smart People Say Dumb Things — Medium

Scott Simon’s bio on the NPR website describes him as “one of America’s most admired writers and broadcasters,” and it’s tough to argue with that. As a Peabody-winning journalist with decades of experience, Simon’s credentials are unimpeachable, and as the Saturday host of Weekend Edition, he regularly shows himself to be all the things you want a radio host to be: thoughtful, avuncular, well-informed, and above all, smart.

Simon also has one and a quarter million followers on Twitter, and last Thursday morning, he asked them this:

Now, you may have had this very thought, after watching someone on a bike blow through a red light, try and lane split through moving traffic, or do something similarly irresponsible. As Simon points out in a follow-up tweet, it happens all the time.

The problem, of course, is that no matter how egregious their behavior was, the three people he observed don’t indicate that “cyclists consider themselves above the law,” any more than a pair of jaywalkers prove that pedestrians are morally opposed to crosswalks. It also takes the very broad problem of traffic violations and limits it to a single minority, ignoring the millions of car and truck drivers who flout the law every day, not to mention those scofflaw pedestrians.

What Simon did in this pair of tweets was overgeneralize about a large group based on the behavior of a few members, and then tie that group to another member with a lot of bad press—two demonizing tactics that’ve been employed pretty much forever, to attack groups ranging from corporate lawyers to Asian drivers to welfare recipients.

Numerous replies pointed out as much, the most entertaining coming from author Eben Weiss, who writes a popular long-running blog out of New York City called BikeSnob:

The rest of the exchange consisted of sympathetic followers favoriting and retweeting Simon’s posts, others responding in passionate agreement, and dozens more drawing attention to its obvious fallacy (in a generally civil tone—Weiss’ snarky retort was about as combative as it got). Simon followed up several more times over the course of the day, appearing at first defensive, then dismissive, and finally a bit chastened and almost conciliatory.

Now, there’s nothing unusual about this kind of bikers vs everyone drama, especially on the Internet: browse the comments section beneath a bike-related article on almost any broad-reaching publication, and you’ll find that few topics besides Israel, healthcare and gun control stir up as much debate.

What’s remarkable is that Simon should’ve known better. An experienced reporter with a sterling reputation for fairness, he’s one of the last people you’d expect to engage in this sort of stereotyping. And yet something made it OK for him to veer from fact into conjecture when talking about some people riding their bikes, in a way that would’ve been unimaginable in describing a professional, economic, ethnic or gender group.

After 15 million miles traveled, the Citibike program has still caused not a single fatality for either pedestrians or riders.

This exception is something I stumble across regularly though, in the media and in everyday life. Delia Ephron, the celebrated screenwriter of “You’ve Got Mail” and producer of “Sleepless in Seattle” was so perturbed by New York’s new Citibike bikeshare system last October that she wrote a 1000-word opinion piece for the New York Times, complaining that “these bicycles have made walking around the city much scarier.” It’s a bold statement, completely at odds with the evidence—as of last month, after 15 million miles traveled, the Citibike program has still caused not a single fatality for either pedestrians or riders, and fewer than 30 serious injuries, while helping to improve the overall safety of the city’s streets.

A similar bikeshare system has been proposed here in Portland, but was vocally opposed in 2011 by city commissioner Amanda Fritz, who cited the “unsafe behavior” of existing cyclists as a reason to avoid anything that might put more of them on the streets.

Even my mom has gotten in on the act, complaining several times of the menace that bicyclists pose to the citizens of Santa Barbara, where she lives. As evidence, she described once witnessing a pack of seven men on bikes, speeding down Alameda Padre Serra at 30mph in the dark, and being struck with terror, despite the fact that hundreds of cars travel that same stretch of road day and night at 35 or 40, posing a vastly greater threat.

In each of these cases, a thoughtful, intelligent observer is prodded by a mix of fear and anger to give an alarming anecdote more weight than an abundance of evidence, or even common sense. On a street carrying thousands of 3000 pound vehicles a day at 40mph or more, we focus our fears on the handful of 30 pound vehicles moving half that fast.

Manhattan. (via Flickr user |vv@ldzen| )
Bookmarked at brandizzi Delicious' sharing tag and expanded by Delicious sharing tag expander.
29 Jul 17:27

Masters of Love - Emily Esfahani Smith - The Atlantic

Every day in June, the most popular wedding month of the year, about 13,000 American couples will say “I do,” committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love that will carry them forward to their final days on this earth.

Except, of course, it doesn’t work out that way for most people. The majority of marriages fail, either ending in divorce and separation or devolving into bitterness and dysfunction. Of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages, as psychologist Ty Tashiro points out in his book The Science of Happily Ever After, which was published earlier this year.

Social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action in the 1970s in response to a crisis: Married couples were divorcing at unprecedented rates. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on the children of the broken marriages, psychologists decided to cast their scientific net on couples, bringing them into the lab to observe them and determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship were. Was each unhappy family unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy claimed, or did the miserable marriages all share something toxic in common?

"Disaster" couples showed signs of being in fight-or-flight mode in their relationships. Having a conversation sitting next to their spouse was, to their bodies, like facing off with a saber-toothed tiger.

Psychologist John Gottman was one of those researchers. For the past four decades, he has studied thousands of couples in a quest to figure out what makes relationships work. I recently had the chance to interview Gottman and his wife Julie, also a psychologist, in New York City. Together, the renowned experts on marital stability run The Gottman Institute, which is devoted to helping couples build and maintain loving, healthy relationships based on scientific studies.

John Gottman began gathering his most critical findings in 1986, when he set up “The Love Lab” with his colleague Robert Levenson at the University of Washington. Gottman and Levenson brought newlyweds into the lab and watched them interact with each other. With a team of researchers, they hooked the couples up to electrodes and asked the couples to speak about their relationship, like how they met, a major conflict they were facing together, and a positive memory they had. As they spoke, the electrodes measured the subjects' blood flow, heart rates, and how much they sweat they produced. Then the researchers sent the couples home and followed up with them six years later to see if they were still together.

From the data they gathered, Gottman separated the couples into two major groups: the masters and the disasters. The masters were still happily together after six years. The disasters had either broken up or were chronically unhappy in their marriages. When the researchers analyzed the data they gathered on the couples, they saw clear differences between the masters and disasters. The disasters looked calm during the interviews, but their physiology, measured by the electrodes, told a different story. Their heart rates were quick, their sweat glands were active, and their blood flow was fast. Following thousands of couples longitudinally, Gottman found that the more physiologically active the couples were in the lab, the quicker their relationships deteriorated over time.

But what does physiology have to do with anything? The problem was that the disasters showed all the signs of arousal—of being in fight-or-flight mode—in their relationships. Having a conversation sitting next to their spouse was, to their bodies, like facing off with a saber-toothed tiger. Even when they were talking about pleasant or mundane facets of their relationships, they were prepared to attack and be attacked. This sent their heart rates soaring and made them more aggressive toward each other. For example, each member of a couple could be talking about how their days had gone, and a highly aroused husband might say to his wife, “Why don’t you start talking about your day. It won’t take you very long.”

The masters, by contrast, showed low physiological arousal. They felt calm and connected together, which translated into warm and affectionate behavior, even when they fought. It’s not that the masters had, by default, a better physiological make-up than the disasters; it’s that masters had created a climate of trust and intimacy that made both of them more emotionally and thus physically comfortable.

Related Story

Stressful Relationships vs. Isolation: The Battle for Our Lives

Gottman wanted to know more about how the masters created that culture of love and intimacy, and how the disasters squashed it. In a follow-up study in 1990, he designed a lab on the University of Washington campus to look like a beautiful bed and breakfast retreat. He invited 130 newlywed couples to spend the day at this retreat and watched them as they did what couples normally do on vacation: cook, clean, listen to music, eat, chat, and hang out. And Gottman made a critical discovery in this study—one that gets at the heart of why some relationships thrive while others languish.

Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls “bids.” For example, say that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, “Look at that beautiful bird outside!” He’s not just commenting on the bird here: he’s requesting a response from his wife—a sign of interest or support—hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.

The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either “turning toward” or “turning away” from her husband, as Gottman puts it. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is whether his wife recognizes and respects that.

People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and support in the bid. Those who didn’t—those who turned away—would not respond or respond minimally and continue doing whatever they were doing, like watching TV or reading the paper. Sometimes they would respond with overt hostility, saying something like, “Stop interrupting me, I’m reading.”

These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year follow up had “turn-toward bids” 33 percent of the time. Only three in ten of their bids for emotional connection were met with intimacy. The couples who were still together after six years had “turn-toward bids” 87 percent of the time. Nine times out of ten, they were meeting their partner’s emotional needs.

* * *

By observing these types of interactions, Gottman can predict with up to 94 percent certainty whether couples—straight or gay, rich or poor, childless or not—will be broken up, together and unhappy, or together and happy several years later. Much of it comes down to the spirit couples bring to the relationship. Do they bring kindness and generosity; or contempt, criticism, and hostility?

“There’s a habit of mind that the masters have,” Gottman explained in an interview, “which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.”

Contempt is the number one factor that tears couples apart. 

“It’s not just scanning environment,” chimed in Julie Gottman. “It’s scanning the partner for what the partner is doing right or scanning him for what he’s doing wrong and criticizing versus respecting him and expressing appreciation.”

Contempt, they have found, is the number one factor that tears couples apart. People who are focused on criticizing their partners miss a whopping 50 percent of positive things their partners are doing and they see negativity when it’s not there. People who give their partner the cold shoulder—deliberately ignoring the partner or responding minimally—damage the relationship by making their partner feel worthless and invisible, as if they’re not there, not valued. And people who treat their partners with contempt and criticize them not only kill the love in the relationship, but they also kill their partner's ability to fight off viruses and cancers. Being mean is the death knell of relationships.

Kindness, on the other hand, glues couples together. Research independent from theirs has shown that kindness (along with emotional stability) is the most important predictor of satisfaction and stability in a marriage. Kindness makes each partner feel cared for, understood, and validated—feel loved. “My bounty is as boundless as the sea,” says Shakespeare’s Juliet. “My love as deep; the more I give to thee, / The more I have, for both are infinite.” That’s how kindness works too: there’s a great deal of evidence showing the more someone receives or witnesses kindness, the more they will be kind themselves, which leads to upward spirals of love and generosity in a relationship.

There are two ways to think about kindness. You can think about it as a fixed trait: either you have it or you don’t. Or you could think of kindness as a muscle. In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others, but it can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that they have to exercise it to keep it in shape. They know, in other words, that a good relationship requires sustained hard work.

“If your partner expresses a need,” explained Julie Gottman, “and you are tired, stressed, or distracted, then the generous spirit comes in when a partner makes a bid, and you still turn toward your partner.”

In that moment, the easy response may be to turn away from your partner and focus on your iPad or your book or the television, to mumble “Uh huh” and move on with your life, but neglecting small moments of emotional connection will slowly wear away at your relationship. Neglect creates distance between partners and breeds resentment in the one who is being ignored.

The hardest time to practice kindness is, of course, during a fight—but this is also the most important time to be kind. Letting contempt and aggression spiral out of control during a conflict can inflict irrevocable damage on a relationship.

“Kindness doesn’t mean that we don’t express our anger,” Julie Gottman explained, “but the kindness informs how we choose to express the anger. You can throw spears at your partner. Or you can explain why you’re hurt and angry, and that’s the kinder path.”

John Gottman elaborated on those spears: “Disasters will say things differently in a fight. Disasters will say ‘You’re late. What’s wrong with you? You’re just like your mom.’ Masters will say ‘I feel bad for picking on you about your lateness, and I know it’s not your fault, but it’s really annoying that you’re late again.’”

* * *

For the hundreds of thousands of couples getting married this month—and for the millions of couples currently together, married or not—the lesson from the research is clear: If you want to have a stable, healthy relationship, exercise kindness early and often.

"A lot of times, a partner is trying to do the right thing even if it's executed poorly. So appreciate the intent."

When people think about practicing kindness, they often think about small acts of generosity, like buying each other little gifts or giving one another back rubs every now and then. While those are great examples of generosity, kindness can also be built into the very backbone of a relationship through the way partners interact with each other on a day-to-day basis, whether or not there are back rubs and chocolates involved.

One way to practice kindness is by being generous about your partner’s intentions. From the research of the Gottmans, we know that disasters see negativity in their relationship even when it is not there. An angry wife may assume, for example, that when her husband left the toilet seat up, he was deliberately trying to annoy her. But he may have just absent-mindedly forgotten to put the seat down.

Or say a wife is running late to dinner (again), and the husband assumes that she doesn’t value him enough to show up to their date on time after he took the trouble to make a reservation and leave work early so that they could spend a romantic evening together. But it turns out that the wife was running late because she stopped by a store to pick him up a gift for their special night out. Imagine her joining him for dinner, excited to deliver her gift, only to realize that he’s in a sour mood because he misinterpreted what was motivating her behavior. The ability to interpret your partner’s actions and intentions charitably can soften the sharp edge of conflict.

“Even in relationships where people are frustrated, it’s almost always the case that there are positive things going on and people trying to do the right thing,” psychologist Ty Tashiro told me. “A lot of times, a partner is trying to do the right thing even if it’s executed poorly. So appreciate the intent.”

Another powerful kindness strategy revolves around shared joy. One of the telltale signs of the disaster couples Gottman studied was their inability to connect over each other’s good news. When one person in the relationship shared the good news of, say, a promotion at work with excitement, the other would respond with wooden disinterest by checking his watch or shutting the conversation down with a comment like, “That’s nice.”

We’ve all heard that partners should be there for each other when the going gets rough. But research shows that being there for each other when things go right is actually more important for relationship quality. How someone responds to a partner’s good news can have dramatic consequences for the relationship.

In one study from 2006, psychological researcher Shelly Gable and her colleagues brought young adult couples into the lab to discuss recent positive events from their lives. They psychologists wanted to know how partners would respond to each other’s good news. They found that, in general, couples responded to each other’s good news in four different ways that they called: passive destructive, active destructive, passive constructive, and active constructive.

Let’s say that one partner had recently received the excellent news that she got into medical school. She would say something like “I got into my top choice med school!”

Those who showed genuine interest in their partner's joys were more likely to be together.

If her partner responded in a passive destructive manner, he would ignore the event. For example, he might say something like: “You wouldn’t believe the great news I got yesterday! I won a free t-shirt!”

If her partner responded in a passive constructive way, he would acknowledge the good news, but in a half-hearted, understated way. A typical passive constructive response is saying “That’s great, babe” as he texts his buddy on his phone.

In the third kind of response, active destructive, the partner would diminish the good news his partner just got: “Are you sure you can handle all the studying? And what about the cost? Med school is so expensive!”

Finally, there’s active constructive responding. If her partner responded in this way, he stopped what he was doing and engaged wholeheartedly with her: “That’s great! Congratulations! When did you find out? Did they call you? What classes will you take first semester?”

Among the four response styles, active constructive responding is the kindest. While the other response styles are joy-killers, active constructive responding allows the partner to savor her joy and gives the couple an opportunity to bond over the good news. In the parlance of the Gottmans, active constructive responding is a way of “turning toward” your partners bid (sharing the good news) rather than “turning away” from it.

Active constructive responding is critical for healthy relationships. In the 2006 study, Gable and her colleagues followed up with the couples two months later to see if they were still together. The psychologists found that the only difference between the couples who were together and those who broke up was active constructive responding. Those who showed genuine interest in their partner’s joys were more likely to be together. In an earlier study, Gable found that active constructive responding was also associated with higher relationship quality and more intimacy between partners. 

There are many reasons why relationships fail, but if you look at what drives the deterioration of many relationships, it’s often a breakdown of kindness. As the normal stresses of a life together pile up—with children, career, friend, in-laws, and other distractions crowding out the time for romance and intimacy—couples may put less effort into their relationship and let the petty grievances they hold against one another tear them apart. In most marriages, levels of satisfaction drop dramatically within the first few years together. But among couples who not only endure, but live happily together for years and years, the spirit of kindness and generosity guides them forward.

Bookmarked at brandizzi Delicious' sharing tag and expanded by Delicious sharing tag expander.
21 Jul 09:45

An Untranslatable Poem

by Greg Ross

In his 1983 book En Torno a la Traducción, Spanish philologist and translator Valentín García Yebra cites a Portuguese poem by Cassiano Ricardo entitled “Serenata sintética”:

rua
      torta

                       lua
                             morta

                                              tua
                                                    porta.

Broadly, it’s an image of an evening tryst, but its import is so embedded in its language that García Yebra found himself unable to convey it in another tongue.

“In this short poem, phonemic form is everything,” write Basil Hatim and Ian Mason in Discourse and the Translator. “The words themselves are evocative: a small town with ‘winding streets’ (rua torta), a ‘fading moon’ (lua morta) and the hint of an amorous affair: ‘your door’ (tua porta). But their impact is achieved almost solely through the close rhyme and rhythm; the meaning is raised from the level of the banal by dint of exploiting features which are indissociable from the Portuguese language as a code.

“García Yebra relates that he gave up the attempt to translate the poem even into Spanish, a language which shares certain phonological features with Portuguese.”

21 Jul 02:17

Parenting in an Age of Bad Samaritans

by Gracy Olmstead

A mother lets her daughter play in the park unaccompanied. A mother leaves her son in the car for a few moments, while she runs into a store to buy headphones. Many parents would consider these actions to be unwise—but are they criminal? According to three recent stories in the news, yes.

In the first case, Debra Harrell, a resident of North Augusta, South Carolina, allowed her daughter to play at the park while she worked at a local McDonald’s. She gave her daughter a cell phone. Lenore Skenazy noted in Reason that the park is “so popular that at any given time there are about 40 kids frolicking … there were swings, a ‘splash pad,’ and shade.” But on her second day at the park, an adult asked the girl where her mother was. When the little girl said she was working, the adult called the cops, who declared the girl “abandoned,” and arrested Harrell.

The second story was shared by Kim Brooks in Salon back in June: her four-year-old son insisted on accompanying her to the grocery store for a quick errand, but then refused to go inside the store. After noting that it was a “mild, overcast, 50-degree day,” and that there were several cars nearby, Brooks agreed and quickly ran into the store. Unbeknownst to her, an adult nearby saw her leave her son, and proceeded to record the whole incident on his phone, watched Brooks return and drive away, and then called the police. The police issued a warrant for her arrest.

These are only a few recent stories in which parents have faced arrest after leaving their children unsupervised. As Radley Balko notes at the Washington Post, these incidents seem to signal the “increasing criminalization of just about everything and the use of the criminal justice system to address problems that were once (and better) handled by families, friends, communities and other institutions.”

This latter point hearkens back to Robert Nisbet’s excellent book The Quest for Community: Nisbet predicted that, in a society without strong private associations, the State would take their place—assuming the role of the church, the schoolroom, and the family, asserting a “primacy of claim” upon our children. “It is hard to overlook the fact,” he wrote, “that the State and politics have become suffused by qualities formerly inherent only in the family or the church.” In this world, the term “nanny state” takes on a very literal meaning.

Balko’s article provides an example of a recent arrest in which the parent doesn’t appear to have done anything particularly wrong:

What started out as a normal Sunday morning for Jeffrey Williamson of Blanchester, Ohio, turned into a nightmare when police officers showed up to his front door and arrested him in front of his family. His crime? Child endangerment—as the authorities described it—because his son skipped church to go play with friends. He now faces up to six months in jail.

According to Williamson, the local Woodville Baptist Church sends a van to his neighborhood twice a week to offer free transportation to those interested in attending services. Williamson’s children ride the van regularly on Wednesdays and Sundays. This morning was no different, as his eight-year-old son Justin and siblings said goodbye to their father and left their house to board the van.

One problem: Justin skipped church and went to play instead.

The young boy stayed in the neighborhood to play with friends and then later ended up at the local Family Dollar store down the road. After police officers were called to the store by a customer who recognized Justin, they took him back to his neighborhood where they proceeded to arrest his father for child endangerment.

The father could not have foreseen or altered the sequence of events. Skipping church doesn’t appear to be something his children normally did, nor did he abandon his child in any way. His arrest appears to be a clear overreaction on the part of the police. It can be argued that the mother who left her daughter to play unsupervised in the park, as well as the Salon writer who left her child alone in the car, both made foolish decisions. But is it the government’s job to police our social decisions?

There’s also the question of the three “good samaritans” in these situations—the people who noticed a child unaccompanied, without a parent, and decided to call the police. In the first instance, perhaps, calling the police made sense: the girl was a complete stranger, by herself at the park. In Brooks’ case, however, a person recorded the whole incident and watched Brooks get into her car before calling the police. They could easily have talked to her, reprimanded her, warned her that they could report such activity. Williamson’s child was seen in the dollar store by a customer who recognized him—thus implying that the person had at least some knowledge of the child’s family. Why didn’t they talk to Justin, or call Justin’s parents?

In each case, the citizen jumped first to the State to care for the situation, rather than exercising any sort of personal involvement. This hardly seems to fit the definition “good samaritan”—these actions reveal a more passive, isolated attitude. But here, again, we see the result of breakdown in modern American community—without a sense of communal closeness or responsibility, we act as bystanders rather than as stewards. As Brooks puts it in her article,

We’re told to warn our children not to talk to strangers. We walk them to school and hover over them as they play and some of us even put GPS systems on them, confident, I guess, that should they get lost, no one will help them. Gone are the days of letting kids roam the neighborhood, assuming that at least one responsible adult will be nearby to keep an eye out. I’m told there are still things like carpools and babysitting co-ops, but I’ve never found one. In place of “It takes a village,” our parenting mantra seems to be “every man for himself.”

This is the unfortunate result of living in a world where parenting is no longer supported and bolstered by private association and community. If only there had been a family member, friend, or church member who had volunteered to watch Harrell’s little girl. If only the “good samaritan” at the dollar store had considered calling Justin’s father, or offered to take the boys home. We live in a society that neglects the sort of private stewardship that could foster truly safe environments for our children—and unfortunately, when parents are thrown into prison, it hardly seems to create more safe surroundings for these kids.

Follow @gracyolmstead

17 Jul 01:32

Será a “reforma política” a mãe de todas as reformas?

by Marcos Mendes
Adam Victor Brandizzi

Um texto longo mas abrangente o suficiente pra valer o esforço.

Sempre que uma crise política ou econômica se instala no país  – como, por exemplo, as manifestações populares de julho de 2013 –  volta ao debate o argumento de que é preciso fazer uma “reforma política”. Tal reforma, chega a ser colocada por alguns analistas como sendo mais importante que as demais (previdenciária, tributária, orçamentária, trabalhista, etc.). Já foi qualificada até como a “mãe de todas as reformas”1.

Em geral o argumento é de que o sistema político prejudica a governabilidade, estimula a corrupção e o agigantamento do Estado. Ao mesmo tempo, não colabora para que se instale uma administração moderna, focada no mérito e nos resultados obtidos, nem tampouco viabiliza a formação de maiorias necessárias para aprovar as demais reformas.

Este texto pretende argumentar que um governo decidido a dar prioridade à reforma política acabaria por conduzir sua administração para um impasse, sendo incapaz de fazer tanto esta reforma quanto as demais.

1 – A “reforma política” é, na verdade, um conjunto de várias reformas: não seria viável tratar todas de uma vez.

Em primeiro lugar, é preciso dizer que não existe “a” reforma política. O que há é uma diversidade de diagnósticos acerca de quais seriam os mais importantes problemas do sistema político e, portanto, um grande rol de propostas de reforma. Por exemplo, aqueles que acreditam que o problema central está na baixa disciplina partidária e na dificuldade de o governo eleito formar maioria no Congresso, propugnam a mudança do atual sistema de eleições proporcionais com lista aberta, usada para a Câmara dos Deputados e legislativos estaduais e municipais, por outros sistemas como o voto distrital ou o voto proporcional em lista fechada. Outros, preocupados com comportamento oportunista de pequenos partidos pouco representativos, desejam que haja uma cláusula de barreira que impeça partidos pouco votados de ter representação na Câmara. Também se preocupam com as distorções geradas pelas coligações em eleições proporcionais ou a regra de escolha de suplentes de senador.

Há, ainda, uma longa lista de temas, como o voto facultativo, a duração das campanhas, as fontes de financiamento (público ou privado), a possibilidade de reeleição, a duração dos mandatos, a vedação a candidatos condenados (ficha limpa), etc.

Percebe-se, portanto, que não existe um único problema a ser resolvido. Há uma diversidade de problemas. Tratá-los todos de uma vez, como uma “ampla reforma política” é inviável.

Tal inviabilidade decorre, em primeiro lugar, das próprias limitações do sistema político. Está claro, após quase trinta anos de democracia, que medidas que contrariam interesses organizados têm viabilidade de aprovação apenas no primeiro ano de mandato presidencial, quando o chefe do Executivo tem o suporte da grande quantidade de votos recentemente obtida e pode apelar para o desejo de mudança e progresso do eleitorado. Com o passar do tempo os grupos de interesse se organizam e a mobilização cívica do período eleitoral se esvai. Por isso é necessário aprovar reformas que estejam baseadas em claro diagnóstico do problema a ser resolvido e da eficácia das medidas a serem tomadas.

2 – Para cada um dos vários problemas há múltiplas soluções propostas e nenhum consenso sobre qual seria a melhor delas

Além de serem muitos os problemas do sistema político, há uma diversidade de soluções propostas para cada um deles. Cada possível solução tem seus benefícios, mas também efeitos colaterais indesejados. O voto distrital, por exemplo, aproximaria o eleitor de seu representante, aumentando a transparência e fiscalização sobre o comportamento do parlamentar. Por outro lado, ampliaria o viés localista da ação dos deputados federais: eleitos por pequenos distritos, eles teriam como principal preocupação levar benefícios para seus eleitores, em vez de se concentrarem nas questões políticas de âmbito nacional. Adicionalmente, sistemas com voto distrital tendem a subrepresentar as minorias. O voto em lista fechada, por sua vez, reduziria custos das eleições e aumentaria a fidelidade partidária, mas traria o risco de uma elite de dirigentes partidários passar a acumular poder excessivo e impedir a ascensão de novos líderes.

Ou seja, há muitos dilemas envolvidos nas escolhas a serem feitas em reformas do sistema político. A sociedade e os partidos políticos estão fortemente divididos sobre qual a melhor opção, muitas vezes em função de interesses ocasionais e de projeto de poder.

Compare-se essa situação com, por exemplo, uma reforma do sistema previdenciário. Aqui o problema tem dimensão bem mais restrita. Há quem afirme que vai tudo bem com a previdência e que nenhuma reforma é necessária. E há os que apontam que o déficit previdenciário é insustentável no longo prazo. A reforma resume-se a aceitar o diagnóstico da necessidade de ajuste (e aprovar a reforma), ou discordar do diagnóstico (e rejeitar a reforma). Obviamente há disputa de grupos de interesses, e discordância sobre como atingir os objetivos da reforma. Mas há muito menos dilemas e incertezas a serem considerados no debate e decisão política do que no caso da “reforma política”. Tanto os diagnósticos quanto as possíveis soluções estão mais maduras e o espectro de possíveis reformas é mais reduzido.

Usar o precioso primeiro ano de mandato de um governo para abrir um debate sobre reforma política seria abrir uma caixa de pandora. Perder-se-ia a oportunidade de ouro de viabilizar outras reformas, também difíceis de fazer, porém “menos inviáveis” que temas afetos à reforma política.

3 – Embora tenha muitos problemas, as regras de funcionamento do sistema político não paralisam o processo decisório: o Presidente da República tem poder suficiente para melhorar políticas públicas e fazer outras reformas.

As regras do sistema político brasileiro, ao longo dos quase trinta anos de democracia, foram sendo adaptadas no sentido de garantir governabilidade, dando ao Presidente da República instrumentos políticos suficientes para colocar em prática seu programa2. Ainda que isso tenha sido obtido por meio de alto custo fiscal, com baixa transparência, limitações à eficiência do governo, espaço para corrupção, entre outros problemas.

A Constituição de 1988 não promoveu mudança radical no sistema de representação política e nas regras eleitorais vigentes no regime militar. Fez apenas adaptações ao que então existia. Manteve-se o regime presidencialista com um Congresso bicameral, no qual a Câmara dos Deputados e o Senado constituem duas instâncias decisórias distintas. Todas as matérias submetidas ao Congresso devem ser votadas em uma casa e revista pela outra. Manteve-se também o sistema federativo, com três níveis de governo: União, estados e municípios.

Isso significa que há diversas instâncias com poder para interferir em decisões políticas. O Poder Executivo federal, para ter uma política pública posta em prática, precisa não apenas obter maioria nas duas casas do Congresso, como também evitar contrariar os interesses de estados e municípios, que dispõem de razoável poder de influência sobre os deputados e senadores representantes de seus respectivos estados.

O Poder Executivo federal, todavia, dispõe de instrumentos que são fortes o suficiente para garantir ao Presidente da República a liderança na ação política e o controle fiscal. O primeiro desses instrumentos são as Medidas Provisórias (MP). Trata-se de leis, de validade provisória, porém imediata, que o Presidente pode decretar sem a prévia aprovação do Congresso. Uma vez instituída uma medida provisória, o Congresso tem prazo para aprovar, emendar ou alterar essa medida, transformando-a em lei de caráter definitivo. Esse instrumento constitui uma adaptação dos “decretos-lei” criados no regime militar. Na forma adotada na nova constituição, as MP têm tramitação prioritária no Congresso e, enquanto houver MP pendentes de votação, o Congresso não pode deliberar sobre grande parte de outras espécies de projeto de lei.  Isso dá ao Presidente da República o poder de definir a agenda do Congresso, colocando os assuntos que considera prioritários no topo da agenda de votações do legislativo.

O Presidente da República dispõe, ainda, de outros instrumentos importantes na sua relação com o Congresso. Ele pode solicitar que determinado projeto de lei tramite em regime de urgência, fazendo-o saltar à frente de outros projetos na prioridade de votação. Também tem o poder privativo de apresentar projetos de lei sobre assuntos específicos (por exemplo, projetos que criam cargos no governo ou alterem a organização administrativa dos órgãos públicos), ficando vedado aos congressistas apresentar projetos dessa natureza.

O modelo de elaboração, votação e execução do orçamento federal também dá grande poder ao Presidente da República. Cabe ao Poder Executivo elaborar a proposta de orçamento e apresentá-la ao Congresso. O Congresso pode alterar as estimativas de receita, bem como acrescentar despesas. Contudo, a lei orçamentária aprovada pelo legislativo é apenas uma autorização de gasto, não obrigando o Executivo a fazer a despesa. Assim, se desejar executar menos despesas que aquelas aprovadas pelo Congresso, o Executivo tem direito de fazê-lo.

Com o advento da redemocratização, aumentou fortemente a pressão por gastos públicos. Houve a criação de programas sociais para atender os pobres (que passaram a ter poder de voto), a ampliação de benefícios à classe média (que passou a ter a liberdade de associação e formação de sindicatos, introdução do Regime Jurídico Único para os funcionários públicos). Isso se somou aos privilégios que os mais ricos sempre obtiveram do estado (subsídios creditícios e fiscais, por exemplo). Frente ao inevitável aumento de despesas, a política fiscal do governo federal é conduzida de forma a tentar equilibrar as contas por meio do aumento da carga tributária. E o Presidente da República efetivamente tem poder para tal. Apesar de todos os defeitos do nosso sistema político, foi possível, em 1999-2000, instituir uma série de medidas fiscais, entre elas a Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal, que reduziram significativamente o déficit público e viabilizaram o fim definitivo da hiperinflação, obtido em 1994.

Ademais, o Presidente da República lança mão do direito de não executar parte das despesas contidas no orçamento. O alvo principal desses cortes têm sido os acréscimos feitos pelos congressistas à despesa orçamentária. Trata-se das chamadas “emendas parlamentares ao orçamento”. Ao liberar a conta-gotas os recursos para pagar tais despesas, o Executivo ganha poder de barganha para controlar o voto dos deputados e senadores. É comum que tais recursos sejam liberados apenas após votações importantes no Congresso, beneficiando aqueles que votaram a favor do Poder Executivo.

Esse instrumento dá ao Presidente o poder de formar maiorias circunstanciais para aprovar projetos de lei e emendas constitucionais, ainda que ao custo de liberar recursos para obras e programas que podem não ser de prioridade nacional. Já foram apontados, também, diversos casos de corrupção ligados às emendas parlamentares. Mas para solucionar esse tipo de problema não é necessária “uma ampla reforma política”, e sim mais transparência, fiscalização e punição de ilícitos.

O Poder Executivo federal pode, ainda, controlar do ritmo de endividamento dos estados e municípios. A maioria dos empréstimos feitos por esses governos tem que ser explicitamente autorizada pelo Poder Executivo federal. Embora esse controle tenha sido frouxo nos primeiros anos após à redemocratização, o que levou a uma crise de sobreendividamento dos entes subnacionais, a partir do ano 2000 tais controles foram reforçados (e afrouxados a partir de 2008). Com isso, o Governo Federal tem poder para induzir estados e municípios a equilibrar suas contas e cooperar no esforço fiscal agregado.

Em suma, não obstante todos os defeitos das instituições político-eleitorais, há espaço para governabilidade. Um Poder Executivo dotado de um programa de governo e uma agenda de reformas tem espaço para realizá-los. Ainda que isso tenha custos de curto prazo, como a liberação de gastos orçamentários não-prioritários, o aumento da carga tributária para financiar esses gastos e a oportunidade de corrupção na execução do orçamento. Parte desses efeitos colaterais pode ser combatida por fortalecimento de instituições como o TCU, a Polícia Federal e a Secretaria do Tesouro Nacional, sem que seja necessário recorrer a “reforma política” para minimizá-los. Talvez a reforma necessária não esteja no sistema político, mas sim na justiça penal que, com sua morosidade, abre espaço para corrupção e mau-feitos sem que haja ameaça de punição aos infratores.

4 – As regras eleitorais geram, de fato, efeitos colaterais negativos para as finanças públicas e o crescimento do país…

Não obstante dispor de amplos poderes, o Poder Executivo não tem força para governar sozinho. Isso é não é um defeito, e sim uma virtude de um regime democrático, que necessita de checks and balances entre os poderes. Esses checks and balances, contudo, podem ser exercidos de forma distorcida, ou estar baseados em incentivos inadequados.

O Congresso, se não tem muito espaço para definir a lista de projetos prioritários para votação e pode ter a sua intervenção no orçamento desfeita pelo Executivo, tem poder para rejeitar ou alterar os projetos de lei e as MP propostas pelo Executivo. O fato de essas propostas  terem que ser aprovadas tanto na Câmara quanto no Senado aumenta o poder de barganha dos congressistas. Há, ainda, matérias que demandam quórum elevado, como as emendas à Constituição, que tornam ainda maior tal poder de veto do Congresso.

O Congresso pode, também, instituir comissões de inquérito para investigar ações do Poder Executivo;  vetar o acesso de pessoas indicadas pelo Presidente de República para exercer cargos em agências reguladoras e outros órgãos públicos; convocar membros do Executivo para inquirir sobre a condução de políticas.

Todas essas ações, importantes instrumentos de equilíbrio de poder em uma democracia, criam também a possibilidade de se “criar dificuldades para vender facilidades”, criando embaraços à gestão pública, ou aumentando o gasto público,  ou criando regulação que favoreça grupos de pressão.

Para conseguir aprovar suas propostas políticas e evitar ações do Congresso que contrariem seus interesses ou desequilibrem as contas públicas, o Presidente da República necessita formar maioria tanto na Câmara quanto no Senado. A formação dessas maiorias depende dos incentivos que deputados e senadores têm para votar a favor do governo. E tais incentivos são formatados pelas regras eleitorais.

Na eleição para a Câmara dos Deputados, cada estado da federação tem direito a um número fixo de cadeiras. O eleitor vota em um candidato específico. O voto ao candidato é computado a favor do seu partido. As cadeiras da Câmara dos Deputados que cabem a um determinado estado são divididas entre os partidos proporcionalmente à fatia de votos que cada agremiação recebeu. As vagas conquistadas por cada partido são preenchidas pelos candidatos mais votados.

Esse sistema de votação tem várias implicações. Em primeiro lugar, ele reduz a disciplina partidária, porque o candidato a deputado disputa contra os seus próprios companheiros de partido. Para ser eleito, não basta que o partido tenha muitos votos. É preciso estar entre os mais votados do partido. A tendência é que cada candidato tenda a fazer campanha individualmente. Não faz sentido fazer campanha em conjunto com outro candidato do mesmo partido, que pode tomar a sua vaga. Menor disciplina partidária significa que os líderes dos partidos não terão forte comando sobre sua bancada e, por isso, não poderão conduzir negociações com o Executivo em nome de toda a bancada. Sempre haverá espaço para cada deputado, individualmente, votar contra a orientação de seu partido. Isso força o Poder Executivo a negociar o apoio a suas iniciativas no varejo, oferecendo a cada deputado ou senador, individualmente, vantagens para mantê-los na base de apoio ao governo.

Em segundo lugar, os candidatos disputam voto em todo o território estadual, pois não há divisão dos estados em distritos eleitorais menores. Como o Brasil é um país de dimensões continentais, os seus estados têm amplos territórios. A combinação de campanha individualizada com um distrito eleitoral grande, que precisa ser percorrido pelo candidato (com instalação de comitês eleitorais e outras despesas)  torna bastante alto o custo de campanha para cada candidato3. Estes precisam encontrar formas de financiar suas campanhas. Uma forma de fazê-lo é buscar a contribuição de lobbies, o que facilita a captura do mandato parlamentar por interesses específicos. Isso reforça o incentivo de cada parlamentar a negociar individualmente com o Executivo a sua permanência na base de apoio, com vistas a atender os interesses específicos de seus financiadores.

Outra estratégia muito comum é o candidato focalizar a busca de votos em uma região específica do estado. Nesse caso, ele se compromete a, durante o mandato, obter recursos federais para um determinado grupo de municípios. São esses incentivos que fazem com que os parlamentares queiram alterar o orçamento federal, com vistas a introduzir despesas de interesse local. Como afirmado acima, o Presidente da República tende a represar essas despesas, liberando-as apenas à medida que os parlamentares nelas interessados votem de acordo com a orientação do governo. Nada impede, também, que as emendas parlamentares ao orçamento sejam apresentadas com vistas a se fazer despesas que beneficiarão grupos econômicos que deram suporte à campanha do parlamentar.

Outra característica importante do sistema eleitoral é que ele permite a eleição de representantes de grupos os mais diversos, inclusive a representação de minorias. Em um sistema de votação em que o estado da federação é repartido em vários distritos e, em cada um deles, há eleição de somente um representante, um grupo minoritário, disperso no território estadual, não conseguirá maioria em nenhum distrito, e não conseguirá ser representado no Congresso. No sistema brasileiro, um grupo minoritário pode somar os seus votos espalhados por todo o território estadual e eleger o seu representante.

Em consequência, há estímulo para que os políticos se especializem em representar os interesses de categorias profissionais específicas, ou patrocinem os direitos de grupos étnicos, de grupos religiosos, de setores econômicos (ruralistas, indústrias, etc.). Com muita frequência formam-se bancadas informais, compostas por parlamentares de diferentes partidos, para representar um interesse específico (bancada da saúde pública, bancada da segurança pública, bancada ruralista, etc.).

Essa dispersão de interesses permite que os diversos agrupamentos se organizem, no Congresso, para pressionar por despesa pública e regulação a favor dos grupos que representam. Como a responsabilidade política pelo equilíbrio fiscal e pelo desempenho macroeconômico cabe ao Poder Executivo, os deputados têm pouco interesse em manter o equilíbrio orçamentário. Para eles, quanto mais despesas conseguirem enxertar no orçamento, melhor. Daí a importância do mecanismo que dá ao Executivo o poder de represar despesas orçamentárias.

O sistema eleitoral também gera incentivos para a criação de um grande número de partidos. Em primeiro lugar, porque cada partido tem direito a verbas públicas e a espaço gratuito na TV para fazer propaganda. Em segundo lugar, porque é possível formar coligações partidárias para disputar as eleições para a Câmara: vários partidos se unem e seus votos e cadeiras na Câmara são contados como se fossem um único partido. Ser líder de um partido, ainda que pequeno, garante ao político poder, verbas e flexibilidade para fazer coalizões de ocasião.

A forte dispersão de interesses  e o grande número de partidos força o Poder Executivo a formar maiorias no Congresso por meio da distribuição de benesses ou ampliação de políticas públicas que atendam os mais diversos grupos sociais. Dificilmente o partido que vence as eleições presidenciais consegue maioria na Câmara dos Deputados. Por isso, é preciso formar alianças, no que ficou apelidado de “presidencialismo de coalizão”.

Alguns partidos políticos se especializaram na função de “partidos de apoio ao Executivo no Congresso”. Em vez de buscar o poder apresentando um candidato à Presidência da República, esses partidos se concentram na formação de ampla bancada na Câmara e no Senado, comandada por hábeis líderes, e se apresentam aos partidos que têm candidatos competitivos à presidência oferecendo  a tão necessária maioria parlamentar.

O preço cobrado vem sob a forma de cargos no governo, postos na direção de empresas estatais, liberação de recursos orçamentários, regulação que protegem grupos profissionais ou econômicos em detrimento do resto da sociedade. Uma simples estatística ilustra bem como a necessidade de acomodar políticos no Poder Executivo, para garantir coalizão majoritária no Congresso, resulta na expansão da máquina pública. No primeiro governo após à redemocratização, o Poder Executivo Federal tinha 25 ministérios. Vinte e seis anos (ou seis mandatos presidenciais) depois, esse número havia chegado a 39! Aumentam-se não apenas as vagas de ministro, como também criam-se ampla burocracia pública e cargos, muitos deles de preenchimento por indicações de políticos.

Há, ainda, a dimensão regional da distribuição de poder. Os militares haviam ampliado o número de cadeiras da Câmara dos Deputados que cabiam aos estados menos desenvolvidos, coincidentemente, os menos populosos. O objetivo à época foi garantir apoio político ao regime militar das lideranças regionais mais dependentes de ajuda financeira federal, além do fato de imperar, nas regiões mais atrasadas, um modelo de controle do eleitorado por líderes políticos locais.

Nos estados mais desenvolvidos, com eleitores de maior renda, mais informados e vivendo predominantemente em grandes cidades, o poder de comando de chefes políticos era menor. A nova constituição acentuou a desproporcionalidade da representação em favor dos estados menos desenvolvidos, situados nas regiões Norte e Nordeste do país. Em primeiro lugar, vários territórios federais localizados na região Norte, que não tinham representação no legislativo, foram transformados em estados, passando a ter direito a deputados e senadores para representá-los. Em segundo lugar, fixou-se um número mínimo de oito deputados por estado, independente do tamanho da população.

Com isso, os estados das regiões mais atrasadas (Norte e Nordeste) ou de desenvolvimento mais recente (Centro-Oeste) conseguem maioria em relação às bancadas do Sul-Sudeste, mais desenvolvido. Norte, Nordeste e Centro-Oeste, juntos, comandam 74% dos votos no Senado e 50% dos votos na Câmara, embora abriguem apenas 46% da população. Isso abre espaço para a barganha por transferências federais para os estados daquelas três regiões. O viés regionalista do parlamento brasileiro é bastante acentuado.

Essa pressão de origem estadual ou regional restringe, também, o uso dos poderes legais do Executivo federal para conter o endividamento dos estados e municípios. É comum que haja pressão política no parlamento, em especial no Senado, para que o Governo Federal alivie o controle do endividamento dos governos subnacionais.

Em suma, o sistema político-eleitoral dá margem a uma série de distorções que incham o estado, reduzem a eficiência da economia, criam privilégios a grupos organizados e, em última instância, prejudicam o crescimento e desenvolvimento do país. Isso não quer dizer, contudo, que uma reforma das regras eleitorais livraria o país de todos esses problemas, conforme argumentado a seguir.

5 – O sistema político eleitoral apenas reflete características históricas da sociedade brasileira: a “reforma política” não mudará aquelas características e pode agravar os problemas que deseja resolver

O Brasil é um país extremamente desigual desde os primeiros anos da colonização, com alta prevalência de clientelismo, apropriação privada de recursos públicos, rent-seeking e corrupção. A redemocratização do país que, por um lado abriu acesso dos mais pobres a políticas públicas, por outro lado permitiu que aquelas características indesejáveis encontrassem terreno fértil para prosperar. Usa-se a negociação política, que idealmente deveria se dar no campo das ideias e projetos para o país, como meio para apropriação de renda e criação de privilégios. Quanto mais grupos sociais tiverem acesso a esse processo de negociação mais intenso o conflito distributivo.

As instituições políticas descritas no item anterior não foram criadas no vácuo. Elas decorrem de escolhas feitas ao longo da história do país.  São mecanismos criados para mediar de forma eficiente os interesses dos diversos grupos sociais. Mudar as regras de forma a tentar barrar comportamentos políticos considerados inadequados pode gerar efeitos colaterais adversos, que resultem em piora da qualidade do processo decisório e da governabilidade, sem que se corrijam os problemas originais.

Tome-se, como exemplo, a imposição de limites ao financiamento privado de campanhas políticas. Ao longo do ano de 2014 o Supremo Tribunal Federal está julgando causa que pleiteia a proibição desse tipo de financiamento. O objetivo é impedir que grandes grupos econômicos tenham poder de influência sobre os políticos eleitos, de modo a reduzir a apropriação de recursos públicos e a criação de regulação econômica que proteja grupos específicos em detrimento do resto da população.

Deve-se questionar, todavia, se a proibição de tais financiamentos vai, efetivamente, bani-los. É possível que apenas aumente o movimento de dinheiro não declarado (caixa dois), reduzindo a transparência das eleições. No sistema vigente pode-se identificar claramente qual empresa doou a qual candidato. Sem registros, fica difícil cobrar explicações dos governantes sobre porque beneficiou determinada empresa.

Ademais, os políticos podem ficar mais dependentes de verbas públicas para financiar suas campanhas, o que estimularia a corrupção, a exploração política das empresas estatais e, sobretudo, daria vantagem competitiva aos candidatos do partido governista, que têm mais acesso aos fundos públicos. Ou seja, os rios correm para o mar. Tentar barrar esse caminho com diques ineficientes pode gerar inundações e outros efeitos adversos, sem impedir que o rio chegue a seu destino.

Outro exemplo interessante está em uma decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal  proibindo congressistas de mudar de partido durante o cumprimento do mandato. O objetivo era aumentar o poder de comando dos partidos sobre seus membros. Imaginava-se que com mais disciplina partidária seria mais fácil formar coalizões que dessem governabilidade ao país, sem a necessidade de o Poder Executivo ter que barganhar o apoio individual de cada parlamentar em cada votação importante no Congresso.

No entanto, a corte suprema não podia proibir a criação de novos partidos, o que significa deixar aberta a possibilidade de se sair de um partido para formar nova agremiação. Indivíduos que se dispuseram a incorrer no custo de cumprir as exigências formais para criar partidos (muitas delas de difícil cumprimento, como a coleta de milhares de assinatura em todo o país) passaram a ofertar vagas a parlamentares desejosos de sair de seus partidos. Obviamente essa oportunidade adquire valor monetário. Não se resolveu o problema original e se agregou mais uma distorção ao sistema.

Além dos efeitos colaterais indesejados, as tentativas de reforma política esbarram na resistência dos interesses estabelecidos. Os políticos e partidos que votarão essas reformas são aqueles que foram eleitos pelas regras vigentes. Portanto, são os beneficiários de tais regras. Vê-se, então, a dificuldade em se mudar tais regras. Em 2007, por exemplo, aprovou-se uma “cláusula de barreira”, que exigia votação mínima para que um partido tivesse representação no Congresso. Tal regra foi contestada junto ao STF pelos partidos prejudicados e acabou sendo considerada inconstitucional pela corte suprema.

Exemplo similar está no caso da “verticalização das coligações eleitorais”. A título de impor coerência programática aos partidos políticos, o Tribunal Superior Eleitoral expediu, em 2006, uma resolução proibindo que os partidos políticos fizessem, nas eleições estaduais, coligações partidárias diferentes daquelas formadas para o pleito nacional. A regra retirava flexibilidade para a negociação política nos diferentes estados. Dado que os partidos políticos têm pouca homogeneidade programática e, em cada estado, abrigam diferentes grupos políticos (em algumas unidades da federação dois partidos podem abrigar grupos aliados, em outras grupos adversários), a regra simplesmente contrariou a realidade política do país. Não obstante a sua meritória intenção, foi revogada pela Emenda Constitucional n. 52, de 2006, que, aprovada rapidamente, retirou essa nova regra de circulação.

6 – O que fazer?

Deve ser possível fazer reformas no sistema político-eleitoral que reduzam os efeitos desse sistema sobre a política fiscal, a governabilidade e a qualidade da gestão pública. Todavia, cada alternativa de regra eleitoral e de representação tem suas vantagens e desvantagens, não sendo fácil se chegar a acordo acerca de que regras geram resultado superior para a média da sociedade. Reformar diversas regras ao mesmo tempo multiplica a complexidade do problema,  desde a dificuldade de aprovação até à imprevisibilidade das consequências e efeitos colaterais.

Assim, ao contrário do que muitas lideranças políticas e analistas argumentam, uma reforma política ampla, seja ela qual for, está longe de ser o santo graal que restabelecerá a virtude e a racionalidade na gestão pública brasileira. Seja porque sua aprovação será muito difícil, seja porque haverá efeitos colaterais indesejados ou, ainda, porque permanecerá intacto o conflito distributivo e o incentivo a se usar o Estado como fonte de rendas e privilégios.

O sistema político-partidário vigente mostra-se compatível e funcional em um contexto em que diversos grupos sociais heterogêneos disputam benesses e regulação estatal a seu favor. Por isso, talvez seja mais interessante dar prioridades a reformas que ajudem a aliviar o conflito distributivo existente no país.

Para isso, é preciso crescer mais rápido e distribuir renda de forma mais eficaz. Deve ser dada prioridade a reformas institucionais que, ao mesmo tempo, estimulem o crescimento econômico e reduzam a desigualdade. No topo dessa lista de prioridades deve estar a reforma da previdência social, pois ela não só bloqueia o crescimento (ao gerar grande déficit público no presente e incerteza quanto à sua sustentabilidade futura) como concentra renda (por pagar benefícios mais elevados a trabalhadores da classe média e garantir pensões e aposentadorias sem equilíbrio atuarial).

Também prioritária deve ser a busca por melhoria na educação pública. A educação aumenta a produtividade (e, portanto, o crescimento) ao mesmo tempo em que aumenta a igualdade de oportunidade, abrindo espaço para redução da desigualdade e da pobreza. Investimento em infraestrutura urbana de atenção aos mais pobres, como saneamento e transportes urbanos de massa também atuam no sentido de aumentar a produtividade dos trabalhadores e melhorar as oportunidades de emprego e de ascensão social.

Em paralelo a isso, é preciso investir em reformas fiscais (muito mais simples que as complexas propostas de reforma política) que imponham maior disciplina ao gasto e ao endividamento públicos, seja por meio de transparência, seja por meio de regras fiscais críveis. Havendo maior restrição orçamentária diminuirá o espaço para que diferentes grupos de interesse consigam extrair renda do Estado.

A gestão cotidiana do orçamento também pode ajudar muito: procedimentos de auditoria dos gastos, análise de custo-benefício dos programas públicos, elaboração de programas federais estruturados que transformem as emendas parlamentares em gastos eficientes, melhorias no planejamento e execução de obras públicas, aperfeiçoamento na legislação de compras públicas e na participação do setor privado em investimentos de infraestrutura. Todas essas são medidas mais fáceis de colocar em prática que uma reforma política de amplo espectro.

Melhorias do sistema judicial que levem à efetiva e rápida punição da corrupção também ajudariam a disciplinar o mercado das negociações políticas. Em especial é preciso tornar a justiça mais rápida e menos sujeita a recursos e chicanas.

Para que os criminosos de colarinho branco sejam efetivamente levados à justiça, é essencial que a Polícia Federal e o Ministério Público tenham autonomia de atuação, sempre dentro dos marcos da legalidade e transparência. Ademais, a imprensa não pode ter sua liberdade de informar cerceada.

Uma vez que essas reformas desencadeiem um ciclo virtuoso de menos corrupção, maior eficiência do estado, maior crescimento econômico e menor desigualdade, surgirá uma classe média, com boas perspectivas de ascensão social. Essa nova classe média terá força política e eleitoral para resistir à captura do Estado por grupos de interesse. Somente quando chegarmos a essa sociedade mais homogênea, com setor público mais eficiente e com maior potencial de crescimento econômico é que haverá espaço para a implantação de um sistema político menos baseado no uso do Estado como fonte de renda e privilégios. Aí as reformas políticas ocorrerão como consequência natural da preferência da maioria do eleitorado.

No nosso atual estágio de desenvolvimento institucional, falar em reforma política ampla é fazer fumaça para esconder os verdadeiros problemas. Nessa área as reformas devem ser pontuais, alterando-se paulatinamente as regras, testando-se o seu efeito nas eleições seguintes. Um bom exemplo disso é a “lei da ficha limpa”, que foi aprovada isolada de qualquer iniciativa de alteração mais ampla das regras eleitorais; tem sido posta em prática nas eleições recentes, e seus efeitos têm sido observados e divulgados pela imprensa, medidos e analisados pelos acadêmicos e modulados pela justiça eleitoral.

__________________

1 Ver, por exemplo: Dantas, H. (2010) Reforma política: aspectos centrais da mãe de todas as reformas.In: Dantas et al. Reforma do estado brasileiro: perspectivas e desafios.Cadernos Adenauer. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

2 Uma descrição sintética das instituições políticas brasileiras e abundantes referências bibliográficas podem ser obtidas em Cintra (2004).

3 Samuels (2001a) e (2001b) mostra como as eleições brasileiras são caras quando comparadas a outras democracias.

 

Download:

  • veja este artigo também em versão pdf (clique aqui).
17 Jul 00:36

Fundação Brava: Como estão as finanças do seu município?

16 de julho de 2014 por mansueto

No Brasil, há várias bases de dados e publicações sobre contas públicas. Mas há um problema sério. Nem sempre essas bases de dados são fáceis de consultar e, assim, várias pessoas têm dificuldade de encontrar dados fiscais do seu município, estado ou governo federal.

Eu próprio comecei a mexer com dados fiscais, em 2004, quando trabalhava no Senado Federal e um senador me perguntou o que explicava o crescimento do gasto público. Na época, tentei encontrar a informação nos jornais que, na época, destacavam o crescimento apenas do gastos de custeio, o que não diz muita coisa. Desde então, passei a acompanhar com uma lupa a despesa do governo federal, escrever sobre o assunto e participar ativamente do debate nesta área.

O problema é que muitas pessoas não têm tempo para “pagar” o custo fixo de aprender a mexer nas bases de dados, principalmente as bases de dados municipais. Mas este problema agora será menor graças à excelente iniciativa da Fundação Brava, que criou um portal na internet – meu Município  (clique aqui)– aberto ao público para consulta das finanças municipais. O portal é muito simples e permite várias comparações interessantes. Vamos olhar  alguns exemplos.

Meu Municipio

Digitem o nome do município de São Paulo. Nota-se que o município, em 2012, teve uma despesa de R$ 34,6 bilhões, sendo que 88% dessa despesa foi com gastos correntes (pessoal e custeio). Nas consultas mais detalhadas, você verá que o município gastou com amortização da divida e pagamento de juros, em 2012, R$ 3,8 bilhões, valor superior ao investimento no mesmo ano que foi de R$ 3 bilhões. Não surpreende, portanto, que o prefeito Fernando Haddad seja um ferrenho defensor da renegociação da divida dos municípios.

Mas isso é normal? O que acontece com outros municípios grandes no Brasil? O portal meu Município da Fundação Brava permite que você faça comparações. Por exemplo, São Paulo, gastou com juros, encargos da dívida e amortização, em 2012, 11% da  despesa total, ante 3,8% no caso do município do Rio de Janeiro.

Há uma diferença interessante na comparação entre São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro. Em geral, quando classificamos o gasto por função, os gastos com educação e saúde se destacam nos gastos do município, o que seria esperado dado que, no Brasil, não importa a cor, partido ou preferencia ideológica do prefeito, ele é obrigado a gastar 25% da receita do seu município com educação e 15% com saúde.

Na próxima eleição, quando o candidato a prefeito prometer que dará prioridade à educação e saúde, lembre que o gasto com essas funções já é prioritário e pergunte ao candidato de que forma ele pretende melhorar este gasto ou mesmo aumentar a arrecadação para poder gastar mais nessas áreas.

O que impressiona no caso do Rio de Janeiro é o elevado gasto do município com a função Urbanismo (18,25% da despesa), que não se destaca tanto no caso de São Paulo. Quando se olha os dados dos últimos três anos, nota-se que os gastos elevados no Rio com Urbanismo é algo recente – 2011 e 2012. Assim, é possível que isso esteja ligado a preparativos para copa e olimpíada? Talvez. Mas é justamente esse tipo de questão e muitas outras que que o portal “Meu Município” permite que se faça.

A Fundação Brava está de parabéns por disponibilizar essas informações. O acesso é gratuito e este é um portal que estará em constante aperfeiçoamento a partir das sugestões dos próprios usuários. Quer se divertir? olhe quanto o seu município gasto com a despesa com pessoal e compare com outros municípios. Vários municípios gastam mais de 50% do total da despesa com pagamento de pessoal – valor muito superior ao que se observa no gasto do governo federal, onde a folha de pessoal ativo e inativo é por volta de 22% da despesa primária (sem incluir a conta de juros e amortização da dívida).

Observem também que, ao contrário do governo federal, as despesas com assistência social e previdência social pesam muito menos nas finanças municipais. A função assistência social envolve os programas de transferência de renda para famílias. No caso do governo federal é nesta função que aparece programas como bolsa-familia e o beneficio mensal aos deficientes e idosos da Lei Orgânica de Assistência Social (LOAS). Será que nos municípios que o PT administra versus PMDB o gasto com assistência social é maior? Novamente, com o portal “Meu Município” é possível responder esta pergunta.

Curtir isso:

Curtir Carregando...

Relacionado

16 Jul 23:09

There’s A Place For Heroic Gambles In Science

by Neuroskeptic

Over at Paul Knoepfler’s excellent Stem Cell Blog, commenter Robert Geller (@rjgeller) offers some remarkable data about the hiring of a disgraced scientist.

Geller queries why Haruko Obokata, the biologist at the center of the “STAP” stem cell scandal, was ever given her job. Obokata is a Research Unit Leader (RUL) at Japan’s national Riken Center for Developmental Biology (CDB). It was after being appointed to this prestigious post that she completed and published her discovery of “STAP cells” – supposedly a new kind of way of making stem cells. Her data turned out to be serious flawed and Obokata’s two papers on STAP were retracted in Nature earlier this month. But should she have been hired in the first place?

Geller compares Obokata’s CV against those of five unnamed “researchers in Japan in the same general field as Dr. Obokata” (and with similar ages), and also against a sixth individual, a biologist who was given the job of Research Unit Leader at the Riken CDB at the same time as Obokata. Here’s the data, with Obokata in red:

obokata_geller

Geller says (my emphasis) that

Dr. Obokata had both the lowest number of total citations and least impactful “hit” [i.e. single most-cited paper] of any of the seven researchers. This suggests that, in the absence of some specific non-quantitative reason for rejecting the ranking implied by the citation data, Dr. Obokata should not have been hired by Riken. This considers only researchers inside Japan and it seems highly likely that there would have also been more highly qualified candidates [for the RUL post] than Dr. Obokata from outside Japan…

In a nutshell, Obokata’s ‘metrics‘ are poor. Compared to her peers she has not published many highly-cited papers. So, Geller asks, why was she, and not someone better qualified, given the extremely prestigious Riken RUL post?

Various reports sketch out a plausible story of what happened here. The story is that Obokata was head-hunted on the personal initiative of the CDB’s management, who wanted Obokata on their staff, so that their institute could claim credit for STAP. Their hope, we’re told, was that STAP would allow Riken to outshine their rival, Nobel Laureate biologist Shinya Yamanaka and his induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Had STAP cells been real, they would have made iPSCs obsolete.

So, by this account, Obokata was hired, not on the strength of her past published work (as STAP was still unpublished at that stage), but on the strength of her current vision and her future potential. Rather than citations and metrics, she was judged by her ideas.

Which is… great. That’s how it should be. This kind of thing ought to happen more often. Metrics can’t measure everything, and there’s a place in science for heroic leaps into the unknown.

So I don’t think the hiring of Obokata should be criticized – not as such. It wasn’t itself a mistake, rather it was based on a mistake, namely the idea that Obokata and her STAP were about to revolutionize biology. This was an error, a scientific blunder on a grand scale. But given that mistaken theory, hiring Obokata was a brave move, a high-stakes scientific gamble. Had it paid off, whoever made the decision would have been seen as a visionary, and the status of the CDB would have been enormously enhanced.

It would be a shame if the hiring of Obokata comes to be seen as a case in point that scientific appointments should be based on metrics. Rather, the lesson here is that even the most attractive ideas require critical evaluation.

The post There’s A Place For Heroic Gambles In Science appeared first on Neuroskeptic.

16 Jul 17:02

Why do we have blood types? | Mosaic

When my parents informed me that my blood type was A+, I felt a strange sense of pride. If A+ was the top grade in school, then surely A+ was also the most excellent of blood types – a biological mark of distinction.

It didn’t take long for me to recognise just how silly that feeling was and tamp it down. But I didn’t learn much more about what it really meant to have type A+ blood. By the time I was an adult, all I really knew was that if I should end up in a hospital in need of blood, the doctors there would need to make sure they transfused me with a suitable type.

And yet there remained some nagging questions. Why do 40 per cent of Caucasians have type A blood, while only 27 per cent of Asians do? Where do different blood types come from, and what do they do? To get some answers, I went to the experts – to haematologists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, virologists and nutrition scientists.

In 1900 the Austrian physician Karl Landsteiner first discovered blood types, winning the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research in 1930. Since then scientists have developed ever more powerful tools for probing the biology of blood types. They’ve found some intriguing clues about them – tracing their deep ancestry, for example, and detecting influences of blood types on our health. And yet I found that in many ways blood types remain strangely mysterious. Scientists have yet to come up with a good explanation for their very existence.

“Isn’t it amazing?” says Ajit Varki, a biologist at the University of California, San Diego. “Almost a hundred years after the Nobel Prize was awarded for this discovery, we still don’t know exactly what they’re for.” 

My knowledge that I’m type A comes to me thanks to one of the greatest discoveries in the history of medicine. Because doctors are aware of blood types, they can save lives by transfusing blood into patients. But for most of history, the notion of putting blood from one person into another was a feverish dream.

Renaissance doctors mused about what would happen if they put blood into the veins of their patients. Some thought that it could be a treatment for all manner of ailments, even insanity. Finally, in the 1600s, a few doctors tested out the idea, with disastrous results. A French doctor injected calf’s blood into a madman, who promptly started to sweat and vomit and produce urine the colour of chimney soot. After another transfusion the man died.

Such calamities gave transfusions a bad reputation for 150 years. Even in the 19th century only a few doctors dared try out the procedure. One of them was a British physician named James Blundell. Like other physicians of his day, he watched many of his female patients die from bleeding during childbirth. After the death of one patient in 1817, he found he couldn’t resign himself to the way things were.

“I could not forbear considering, that the patient might very probably have been saved by transfusion,” he later wrote.

Blood types: a historical galleryBlundell became convinced that the earlier disasters with blood transfusions had come about thanks to one fundamental error: transfusing “the blood of the brute”, as he put it. Doctors shouldn’t transfer blood between species, he concluded, because “the different kinds of blood differ very importantly from each other”.

Human patients should only get human blood, Blundell decided. But no one had ever tried to perform such a transfusion. Blundell set about doing so by designing a system of funnels and syringes and tubes that could channel blood from a donor to an ailing patient. After testing the apparatus out on dogs, Blundell was summoned to the bed of a man who was bleeding to death. “Transfusion alone could give him a chance of life,” he wrote.

Several donors provided Blundell with 14 ounces of blood, which he injected into the man’s arm. After the procedure the patient told Blundell that he felt better – “less fainty” – but two days later he died.

Still, the experience convinced Blundell that blood transfusion would be a huge benefit to mankind, and he continued to pour blood into desperate patients in the following years. All told, he performed ten blood transfusions. Only four patients survived.

While some other doctors experimented with blood transfusion as well, their success rates were also dismal. Various approaches were tried, including attempts in the 1870s to use milk in transfusions (which were, unsurprisingly, fruitless and dangerous).

Blundell was correct in believing that humans should only get human blood. But he didn’t know another crucial fact about blood: that humans should only get blood from certain other humans. It’s likely that Blundell’s ignorance of this simple fact led to the death of some of his patients. What makes those deaths all the more tragic is that the discovery of blood types, a few decades later, was the result of a fairly simple procedure.

The first clues as to why the transfusions of the early 19th century had failed were clumps of blood. When scientists in the late 1800s mixed blood from different people in test tubes, they noticed that sometimes the red blood cells stuck together. But because the blood generally came from sick patients, scientists dismissed the clumping as some sort of pathology not worth investigating. Nobody bothered to see if the blood of healthy people clumped, until Karl Landsteiner wondered what would happen. Immediately, he could see that mixtures of healthy blood sometimes clumped too.

Landsteiner set out to map the clumping pattern, collecting blood from members of his lab, including himself. He separated each sample into red blood cells and plasma, and then he combined plasma from one person with cells from another.

Landsteiner found that the clumping occurred only if he mixed certain people’s blood together. By working through all the combinations, he sorted his subjects into three groups. He gave them the entirely arbitrary names of A, B and C. (Later on C was renamed O, and a few years later other researchers discovered the AB group. By the middle of the 20th century the American researcher Philip Levine had discovered another way to categorise blood, based on whether it had the Rh blood factor. A plus or minus sign at the end of Landsteiner’s letters indicates whether a person has the factor or not.)

When Landsteiner mixed the blood from different people together, he discovered it followed certain rules. If he mixed the plasma from group A with red blood cells from someone else in group A, the plasma and cells remained a liquid. The same rule applied to the plasma and red blood cells from group B. But if Landsteiner mixed plasma from group A with red blood cells from B, the cells clumped (and vice versa).

The blood from people in group O was different. When Landsteiner mixed either A or B red blood cells with O plasma, the cells clumped. But he could add A or B plasma to O red blood cells without any clumping.

It’s this clumping that makes blood transfusions so potentially dangerous. If a doctor accidentally injected type B blood into my arm, my body would become loaded with tiny clots. They would disrupt my circulation and cause me to start bleeding massively, struggle for breath and potentially die. But if I received either type A or type O blood, I would be fine.

Landsteiner didn’t know what precisely distinguished one blood type from another. Later generations of scientists discovered that the red blood cells in each type are decorated with different molecules on their surface. In my type A blood, for example, the cells build these molecules in two stages, like two floors of a house. The first floor is called an H antigen. On top of the first floor the cells build a second, called the A antigen.

People with type B blood, on the other hand, build the second floor of the house in a different shape. And people with type O build a single-storey ranch house: they only build the H antigen and go no further.

Each person’s immune system becomes familiar with his or her own blood type. If people receive a transfusion of the wrong type of blood, however, their immune system responds with a furious attack, as if the blood were an invader. The exception to this rule is type O blood. It only has H antigens, which are present in the other blood types too. To a person with type A or type B, it seems familiar. That familiarity makes people with type O blood universal donors, and their blood especially valuable to blood centres.

Landsteiner reported his experiment in a short, terse paper in 1900. “It might be mentioned that the reported observations may assist in the explanation of various consequences of therapeutic blood transfusions,” he concluded with exquisite understatement. Landsteiner’s discovery opened the way to safe, large-scale blood transfusions, and even today blood banks use his basic method of clumping blood cells as a quick, reliable test for blood types.

But as Landsteiner answered an old question, he raised new ones. What, if anything, were blood types for? Why should red blood cells bother with building their molecular houses? And why do people have different houses?

Solid scientific answers to these questions have been hard to come by. And in the meantime, some unscientific explanations have gained huge popularity. “It’s just been ridiculous,” sighs Connie Westhoff, the Director of Immunohematology, Genomics, and Rare Blood at the New York Blood Center. 

In 1996 a naturopath named Peter D’Adamo published a book called Eat Right 4 Your Type. D’Adamo argued that we must eat according to our blood type, in order to harmonise with our evolutionary heritage.

Blood types, he claimed, “appear to have arrived at critical junctures of human development.” According to D’Adamo, type O blood arose in our hunter-gatherer ancestors in Africa, type A at the dawn of agriculture, and type B developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago in the Himalayan highlands. Type AB, he argued, is a modern blending of A and B.

From these suppositions D’Adamo then claimed that our blood type determines what food we should eat. With my agriculture-based type A blood, for example, I should be a vegetarian. People with the ancient hunter type O should have a meat-rich diet and avoid grains and dairy. According to the book, foods that aren’t suited to our blood type contain antigens that can cause all sorts of illness. D’Adamo recommended his diet as a way to reduce infections, lose weight, fight cancer and diabetes, and slow the ageing process.

D’Adamo’s book has sold 7 million copies and has been translated into 60 languages. It’s been followed by a string of other blood type diet books; D’Adamo also sells a line of blood-type-tailored diet supplements on his website. As a result, doctors often get asked by their patients if blood type diets actually work.

The best way to answer that question is to run an experiment. In Eat Right 4 Your Type D’Adamo wrote that he was in the eighth year of a decade-long trial of blood type diets on women with cancer. Eighteen years later, however, the data from this trial have not yet been published.

Recently, researchers at the Red Cross in Belgium decided to see if there was any other evidence in the diet’s favour. They hunted through the scientific literature for experiments that measured the benefits of diets based on blood types. Although they examined over 1,000 studies, their efforts were futile. “There is no direct evidence supporting the health effects of the ABO blood type diet,” says Emmy De Buck of the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders.

After De Buck and her colleagues published their review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, D’Adamo responded on his blog. In spite of the lack of published evidence supporting his Blood Type Diet, he claimed that the science behind it is right. “There is good science behind the blood type diets, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathmatical [sic] calculations that led to the Theory of Relativity,” he wrote.

Comparisons to Einstein notwithstanding, the scientists who actually do research on blood types categorically reject such a claim. “The promotion of these diets is wrong,” a group of researchers flatly declared in Transfusion Medicine Reviews.

Nevertheless, some people who follow the Blood Type Diet see positive results. According to Ahmed El-Sohemy, a nutritional scientist at the University of Toronto, that’s no reason to think that blood types have anything to do with the diet’s success.

El-Sohemy is an expert in the emerging field of nutrigenomics. He and his colleagues have brought together 1,500 volunteers to study, tracking the foods they eat and their health. They are analysing the DNA of their subjects to see how their genes may influence how food affects them. Two people may respond very differently to the same diet based on their genes.

“Almost every time I give talks about this, someone at the end asks me, ‘Oh, is this like the Blood Type Diet?’” says El-Sohemy. As a scientist, he found Eat Right 4 Your Type lacking. “None of the stuff in the book is backed by science,” he says. But El-Sohemy realised that since he knew the blood types of his 1,500 volunteers, he could see if the Blood Type Diet actually did people any good.

El-Sohemy and his colleagues divided up their subjects by their diets. Some ate the meat-based diets D’Adamo recommended for type O, some ate a mostly vegetarian diet as recommended for type A, and so on. The scientists gave each person in the study a score for how well they adhered to each blood type diet.

The researchers did find, in fact, that some of the diets could do people some good. People who stuck to the type A diet, for example, had lower body mass index scores, smaller waists and lower blood pressure. People on the type O diet had lower triglycerides. The type B diet – rich in dairy products – provided no benefits.

“The catch,” says El-Sohemy, “is that it has nothing to do with people’s blood type.” In other words, if you have type O blood, you can still benefit from a so-called type A diet just as much as someone with type A blood – probably because the benefits of a mostly vegetarian diet can be enjoyed by anyone. Anyone on a type O diet cuts out lots of carbohydrates, with the attending benefits of this being available to virtually everyone. Likewise, a diet rich in dairy products isn’t healthy for anyone – no matter their blood type.

One of the appeals of the Blood Type Diet is its story of the origins of how we got our different blood types. But that story bears little resemblance to the evidence that scientists have gathered about their evolution.

After Landsteiner’s discovery of human blood types in 1900, other scientists wondered if the blood of other animals came in different types too. It turned out that some primate species had blood that mixed nicely with certain human blood types. But for a long time it was hard to know what to make of the findings. The fact that a monkey’s blood doesn’t clump with my type A blood doesn’t necessarily mean that the monkey inherited the same type A gene that I carry from a common ancestor we share. Type A blood might have evolved more than once.

The uncertainty slowly began to dissolve, starting in the 1990s with scientists deciphering the molecular biology of blood types. They found that a single gene, called ABO, is responsible for building the second floor of the blood type house. The A version of the gene differs by a few key mutations from B. People with type O blood have mutations in the ABO gene that prevent them from making the enzyme that builds either the A or B antigen.

Scientists could then begin comparing the ABO gene from humans to other species. Laure Ségurel and her colleagues at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris have led the most ambitious survey of ABO genes in primates to date. And they’ve found that our blood types are profoundly old. Gibbons and humans both have variants for both A and B blood types, and those variants come from a common ancestor that lived 20 million years ago.

Our blood types might be even older, but it’s hard to know how old. Scientists have yet to analyse the genes of all primates, so they can’t see how widespread our own versions are among other species. But the evidence that scientists have gathered so far already reveals a turbulent history to blood types. In some lineages mutations have shut down one blood type or another. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, have only type A and type O blood. Gorillas, on the other hand, have only B. In some cases mutations have altered the ABO gene, turning type A blood into type B. And even in humans, scientists are finding, mutations have repeatedly arisen that prevent the ABO protein from building a second storey on the blood type house. These mutations have turned blood types from A or B to O. “There are hundreds of ways of being type O,” says Westhoff.

Being type A is not a legacy of my proto-farmer ancestors, in other words. It’s a legacy of my monkey-like ancestors. Surely, if my blood type has endured for millions of years, it must be providing me with some obvious biological benefit. Otherwise, why do my blood cells bother building such complicated molecular structures?

Yet scientists have struggled to identify what benefit the ABO gene provides. “There is no good and definite explanation for ABO,” says Antoine Blancher of the University of Toulouse, “although many answers have been given.”

The most striking demonstration of our ignorance about the benefit of blood types came to light in Bombay in 1952. Doctors discovered that a handful of patients had no ABO blood type at all – not A, not B, not AB, not O. If A and B are two-storey buildings, and O is a one-storey ranch house, then these Bombay patients had only an empty lot.

Since its discovery this condition – called the Bombay phenotype – has turned up in other people, although it remains exceedingly rare. And as far as scientists can tell, there’s no harm that comes from it. The only known medical risk it presents comes when it’s time for a blood transfusion. Those with the Bombay phenotype can only accept blood from other people with the same condition. Even blood type O, supposedly the universal blood type, can kill them.

The Bombay phenotype proves that there’s no immediate life-or-death advantage to having ABO blood types. Some scientists think that the explanation for blood types may lie in their variation. That’s because different blood types may protect us from different diseases.

Doctors first began to notice a link between blood types and different diseases in the middle of the 20th century, and the list has continued to grow. “There are still many associations being found between blood groups and infections, cancers and a range of diseases,” Pamela Greenwell of the University of Westminster tells me.

From Greenwell I learn to my displeasure that blood type A puts me at a higher risk of several types of cancer, such as some forms of pancreatic cancer and leukaemia. I’m also more prone to smallpox infections, heart disease and severe malaria. On the other hand, people with other blood types have to face increased risks of other disorders. People with type O, for example, are more likely to get ulcers and ruptured Achilles tendons.

These links between blood types and diseases have a mysterious arbitrariness about them, and scientists have only begun to work out the reasons behind some of them. For example, Kevin Kain of the University of Toronto and his colleagues have been investigating why people with type O are better protected against severe malaria than people with other blood types. His studies indicate that immune cells have an easier job of recognising infected blood cells if they’re type O rather than other blood types.

More puzzling are the links between blood types and diseases that have nothing to do with the blood. Take norovirus. This nasty pathogen is the bane of cruise ships, as it can rage through hundreds of passengers, causing violent vomiting and diarrhoea. It does so by invading cells lining the intestines, leaving blood cells untouched. Nevertheless, people’s blood type influences the risk that they will be infected by a particular strain of norovirus.

The solution to this particular mystery can be found in the fact that blood cells are not the only cells to produce blood type antigens. They are also produced by cells in blood vessel walls, the airway, skin and hair. Many people even secrete blood type antigens in their saliva. Noroviruses make us sick by grabbing onto the blood type antigens produced by cells in the gut.

Yet a norovirus can only grab firmly onto a cell if its proteins fit snugly onto the cell’s blood type antigen. So it’s possible that each strain of norovirus has proteins that are adapted to attach tightly to certain blood type antigens, but not others. That would explain why our blood type can influence which norovirus strains can make us sick.

It may also be a clue as to why a variety of blood types have endured for millions of years. Our primate ancestors were locked in a never-ending cage match with countless pathogens, including viruses, bacteria and other enemies. Some of those pathogens may have adapted to exploit different kinds of blood type antigens. The pathogens that were best suited to the most common blood type would have fared best, because they had the most hosts to infect. But, gradually, they may have destroyed that advantage by killing off their hosts. Meanwhile, primates with rarer blood types would have thrived, thanks to their protection against some of their enemies.

As I contemplate this possibility, my type A blood remains as puzzling to me as when I was a boy. But it’s a deeper state of puzzlement that brings me some pleasure. I realise that the reason for my blood type may, ultimately, have nothing to do with blood at all.

Bookmarked at brandizzi Delicious' sharing tag and expanded by Delicious sharing tag expander.
16 Jul 17:01

Rise of the Sea Urchin | Science | Smithsonian

When it comes to their neighbors in Norway, the good people of Denmark and Sweden have a limitless fount of jokes, many of which are reductive and in questionable taste; none of which should, under any circumstance, be repeated.

Here’s one of the funniest:

A Dane, a Swede and a Norwegian are shipwrecked on a desert island. The Dane finds a magic shell, which, when rubbed, entitles each of the castaways to a wish. The Dane says: “I wish to go home to my cozy flat in Copenhagen and relax on my soft sofa beside my sexy girlfriend with a six-pack of beer.” He promptly disappears. The Swede says, “I wish to return to my large and comfortable Stockholm bungalow, with its sleek Ikea furniture.” He vanishes, too. After mulling his options, the Norwegian says,

“I’m terribly lonely now. I wish my two friends were here with me.”

For much of the last decade, Roderick Sloan has been viewed as something of a Norwegian joke. By Norwegians, no less. The 44-year-old émigré Scot makes his home 88 miles north of the Arctic Circle—little more than a cod’s toss from Nordskot (pop. 55), one of Norway’s darkest, bleakest, remotest coastal villages.

Inside the spiky test are five corals of roe, sometimes called tongues—the sea urchin’s wobbly gonads. (Karoline O.A. Pettersen)
Sea urchins with their skin and spines removed. (Jennifer Steen Booher)
The frigid waters north of the Arctic Circle. (Karoline O.A. Pettersen)
Roderick Sloan endures the spring chill on the Big Betty. ( Karoline O.A. Pettersen)
“You start with sea salt, then you get a big iodine hit, and, at the end, a distinctive sweetness that sits in your mouth," says Sloan. (Howard Sooley)
Sloan clutches a pair of green sea urchins, which he plucks from the frigid waters north of the Arctic Circle. (Howard Sooley)
Roderick Sloan prepares for his dive into the frigid Arctic waters of Vestfjorden carrying 65 pounds of scuba gear. (Karoline O.A. Pettersen)
The urchin diver gazes over the waves on what’s for him just another day at the office. (Karoline O.A. Pettersen)
Sloan’s sea urchins are a delicacy featured in the New Nordic cuisine of the restaurant Noma in Copenhagen. (Courtesy of Noma )
Sloan displays a sea urchin he plucked from the sandy seafloor off the coast of Norway. (Karoline O.A. Pettersen)

The farm he shares with his wife (Lindis), young sons (names withheld by request) and dog (Sisko, an aged Labrador with bad joints and a worse aroma) spans 500 scraggly acres. The land is speckled with birch and encircled by mountain—lofty, sharp-edged and shaped like dragon’s teeth. It’s an agreeable enough place in what American travel writer Bill Bryson might call a thank-you-God-for-not-making-me-live-here sort of way. “Summer is special in Nordskot,” cracks Christopher Sjuve, an Oslo-based wine blogger. “It’s everyone’s favorite day of the year.”

Sloan embraces the isolation. “I love the tranquility here, you understand,” he says in a soft Scottish burr, rolling his r’s and stretching out his vowels. “I love the clean air and the changes of the seasons. It’s not perfection, but then if life is too perfect, it can be perfectly dull.”

What makes Sloan perfectly risible in the eyes of many is the precarious career he has carved. In weather that would be considered mild only on Neptune, he dives into the icy fjord to gather sea urchins, those wee beasties that look like squash balls encased in pine thistles. Sloan’s aquatic treasure hunts for krakebolle (“crow’s balls” in Norwegian) are as dangerous as they are daring. Waves are often treacherous; squalls, gusty; and storms can appear in an instant. “Roddie swims alone, down to 50 feet deep,” Sjuve observes. “You’ve either got to be drunk or crazy to do what he does.”

Crazy, say the locals. “When I started to harvest urchins in 2002, everyone thought I was bananas,” Sloan says. “They’re not a traditional catch in north Norway.” He means urchins, not bananas. Though plentiful, urchins are not exactly standard fare in Norway, a nation of largely unadventurous eaters who annually consume 48 million frozen pizzas—about 10 per capita. Sloan is practically a cottage industry unto himself. “We’ve got seals and killer whales,” he says, “but I’m the country’s only full-time urchin diver.”

In the brave new world of fine dining, the roe of the humble urchin—a shellfish once cursed as a pest to lobstermen, mocked as “whore’s eggs” and routinely smashed with hammers or tossed overboard as unsalable “bycatch”—is a prized and slurpily lascivious delicacy. Unlike caviar, which is the eggs of fish, the roe of the urchin is its wobbly gonads. Every year more than 100,000 tons of them slide down discerning throats, mainly in France and Japan, where the chunks of salty, grainy custard are known as uni and believed to be an uplifting tonic, if not an aphrodisiac. The Japanese exchange urchins as gifts during New Year celebrations.

Sloan supplies Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, or “Norwegian greens,” to dozens of the most revered restaurants in Europe, from London’s meaty, masculine mecca of English food (St. John) to the 12-seat Fäviken in the wilds of northern Sweden, where chef Magnus Nilsson stalks lingonberries in bearskin with his gun dog, Krut.

Master chefs buzz among themselves about Sloan’s urchins like discoverers of a latter-day Beatles—or, in the case of René Redzepi, beetles. The founder of “New Nordic” cuisine, Redzepi runs Noma, a Copenhagen eatery that Restaurant magazine has judged to be the world’s best in four of the last five years.

Redzepi’s 28-course celebration of local and seasonal ingredients foraged from the woodlands and seashore is designed to demonstrate nature on a plate. He fashions culinary bouquets from wild herbs and edible soil, toasted hay and reindeer moss, live ants and fermented grasshoppers. (“Waiter, there’s a fly in my soup!” “Yes, and for the next course...”) In one signature dish, raw North Atlantic shrimp are washed up on a “beachscape” of grasses, frozen pebbles and dried-urchin “sand” that showcases the Norwegian green’s murky orange innards. Sloan provides the urchins, which the Danish have dubbed søpindsvin (sea hedgehogs). Redzepi says they’re as luscious as anything he’s ever eaten.

“It’s like Roddie invented a new product, a new culinary sensation,” echoes fellow chef Esben Holmboe Bang, whose Maaemo is the most shimmering of Oslo’s Michelin-starred chow houses. “His Norwegian greens are sweet and tender and you can taste the wilderness in every bite. It’s like you’re making out with the sea.”

***

The night before the greens first appeared on Noma’s menu, a waiter asked, “Where do sea urchins come from?”

“They grow on trees,” said another waiter, helpfully. Which even by Scandinavian standards wasn’t much of a comeback. It so happens that urchins can be found in almost every major marine habitat from the poles to the Equator, and from shallow inlets to depths of more than 17,000 feet. Sloan mostly targets exposed reefs with rich forests of kelp, which urchins eat ravenously.

At dawn on this brutal spring morning, Sloan and his one-man crew—a Frenchman who answers to J.C.—clamber onto a red polar work boat he’s christened Big Betty. Out to sea, a white-tailed eagle is wheeling and, beyond that, to the northwest, you can see the lumpy peninsula jutting toward the Lofoten Islands. Under an immense sky (sea clear, light swell) Big Betty putters along until reaching a craggy cove, where Sloan spies the familiar dark shadows. He zips up his dry suit, yanks on rubber gloves and straps on 65 pounds of scuba gear. Plopping backward into the water, Sloan shimmies through dense clusters of seaweed, propelled by the surge of each wave.

Urchins have hundreds of adhesive tube feet and move over the sandy seafloor at a fairly leisurely pace. Sloan collects them with diligence and a certain tenderness, placing the prickly krakebolle one by one into the mesh sacks that flutter in his wake. After 30 minutes he surfaces through the surf, and is quickly hauled onto the deck by J.C., who then sorts the urchins according to color, size and condition. A typical daily haul is between 200 and 300 pounds.

Sloan’s frozen lips are the same pale blue as the water; his breathing is so labored he can barely speak. “Welcome to my office,” he says at last. “This is a magic place to be. Every day I feel like I’m parachuting into the Amazon jungle, without the piranhas. I have no idea what’s going to happen. It’s quite exciting, but it can be terrifying as well.”

He smiles gently. Sloan is an engagingly modest, gruff and diffident fellow with an untamed beard and a sharp sense of humor—in three languages. “I’m quite a sane guy,” he says, “but I’m a bit mad, too.” He’s never bothered to pry out the urchin spike his right thumb has harbored since 2004. “The first year it’s interesting. After that, it becomes part of you.”

The English writer P. G. Wodehouse wrote that it’s never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine. Though Sloan has a copious supply of inner sunshine, he holds strong opinions—about politicians, whaling, the sustainable and ethical consumption of fish, the 1970s TV spy show “The Man From Atlantis” (which he loves), Nordic mosquitoes (hates), the medicinal value of periwinkles—and he doesn’t hesitate to express them. If he invites you to spend a day aboard Big Betty, then you’ve passed some very stringent, very idiosyncratic test of character.

At this moment he’s standing astride Betty’s stern, holding forth on the perils of his profession. He recalls a five-hour battle through 20-foot waves to get his first tiny boat the final kilometer home. (“If you steer the wrong way, you die. It’s as simple as that.”) He compares disentangling himself from a clump of underwater kelp to squeezing through a hawthorn hedge. He describes being flung into a churning washing machine of surf and currents. “I’m upside-down, swirling above jagged rocks, unable to see my oxygen bubbles. During a whiteout, I can float for five minutes with no idea where I am.”

Sloan is awed by the milky nothingness he confronts during urchin spawning season, when the sea teems with delicate, transparent creatures of great beauty. The currents and low visibility make diving too risky. “Imagine if you could see all the pollen spores in the air. It’s like snorkeling in a tub of bathwater after you dropped a bar of soap in it. This is the soup of life, you understand.”

He first dipped a toe into that soup at age 5, during a fishing holiday to the Scottish Highlands. (The family motto: Sleep long and prosper.) When the lure of his older brother, Robbie, got snagged on some slimy seaweed, Roddie volunteered to fetch it. “I must have walked only a few yards, but it seemed like a few miles,” he says. “I remember thinking that the sea is this wonderful place.”

Which, growing up in the land-locked hamlet of Dunscore he never much got to experience. “At 19, I kind of struggled off into life,” he says. “I was bitterly disappointed with it.” He drifted through Europe, finding work in restaurants as a porter, a cook and a manager. At 27, he landed in Oslo and got a job in a sports lounge. While tending bar he met his future wife, Lindis, a college student who had come to watch a British soccer match on the wide­screen TV. She asked him to change the channel. He complied. They’ve been a couple pretty much ever since.

It was Lindis’ brother who suggested that Roddie move to Arctic Norway and hunt the feral urchin. “The big problem was not fishing them,” Roddie says. “The big problem was selling them.” Business was never easy, though Sloan began to source some of the continent’s top restaurants, like Alain Ducasse’s Le Louis XV in Monaco. But when his Paris wholesaler went bust in 2008, he decided to return to school and pursue a degree in engineering. A phone call from René Redzepi changed all that. The Noma chef asked Sloan to ship his greens to Denmark. Sloan was reluctant, but at Lindis’ urging—and after tripling the price as a disincentive—he gave in. “I was ready to throw in the beach towel,” he says. “René saved my career.” Noma now has a standing order for 100 pounds a week.

The greens are at their prime from November to the end of February. When the season winds up, Sloan switches to mahogany clams, which Norwegian fishermen once used as cod bait. The clams stop reproducing after 25 years, and some that Sloan harvests are hundreds of years old. “They’ve spent centuries just lying in their beds,” he says. Bored, not happy as, well...clams. “If a mahogany clam had a brain, it might think, ‘I’ve just turned 350. Why wasn’t I born a dog? Twelve years of this crap and it would all be over.’”

Urchins lack brains, too. The test—its spiny outer shell—protects what is basically an eating and breeding machine. The skeleton is divided into sections running from top to bottom, like the segments of an orange. Inside the body are five corals of roe, sometimes called tongues. On the underside of the test are a muscular system and five self-honing calcium carbonate teeth that allow the urchin to chomp through stone. This chewing apparatus is known as Aristotle’s lantern, from a description in the fourth century B.C. philosopher and naturalist’s Historia Animalium. (Scholars recently proposed that he was actually referring to the test, which resembles the bronze lamps of ancient Greece.)

Urchins are among the earliest forms of life known to have existed. Their fossils date back some 450 million years. “The little buggers are believed to share a distant common ancestor with humans,” says Sloan. Which sounds like the setup for another Norwegian joke.

Around 800 species of urchins are still extant. All have roe that’s edible, though not necessarily palatable. In the kitchen of his farmhouse, Sloan demonstrates how to cut around the Norwegian green’s mouth and scoop out the tongues. In theory, urchins should be opened with a coupe oursin—a tool specially designed for the job. Sloan doesn’t own one, so he uses his wife’s nail scissors. Inserting the tip into the mouthparts, he snips off an itty-bitty piece and trims the top third of the shell to reveal the roe. He spoons out a fillet and places it on your tongue: The sensation is soft and pillowy. “I love the taste of urchin when it’s really good,” Sloan says. “You start with sea salt, then you get a big iodine hit, and, at the end, a distinctive sweetness that sits in your mouth for hours.”

***

Oyster farmers in the United States have lately twisted the term terroir to create “merroir,” which refers to the flavors imparted by different areas of the sea. In the urchin’s case, flavor depends on the species and the seaweed it eats, says John Lawrence, who wrote the book on the subject (it’s for sale: Sea Urchins: Biology and Ecology, $200, Academic Press).

The merroir of oysters varies widely—generally, smaller varieties tend to have a slightly metallic taste. We ask: In the urchins’ briny universe, does size matter? “The urchin gonad is both a nutritive reserve organ and a gametogenic organ,” says Lawrence, a professor at the University of South Florida. “It is a nutrient reserve organ because it produces nutritive phagocytes that store protein and glycogen. These are produced in the gonads during the first part of the reproductive cycle and are transferred to the gametes. The gonads are most flavorful when they consist primarily of nutritive phagocytes and not gametes. It is possible the gonads of small urchins consist primarily of nutritive phagocytes.”

Simply said, Sloan’s finest urchins are much like a juicy cut of Wagyu steak: lots of energy stored. The nutritive phagocytes of the roe and the fat of well-marbled beef account for their robustness. Sloan has an even simpler explanation for why his greens are so exquisite. “By June, when the midnight sun arrives, there’s lots of algae for them to eat,” he says. “Everything grows slowly up here, so the urchins taste better.”

***

Both fragile and destructive, the urchin is a tempest in an environmental seapot. In every corner of the planet, there seem to be either too few or too many. The French and Irish exhausted their resident stocks years ago. In Maine, Nova Scotia and Japan, urchin populations have been drastically reduced by overfishing and disease.

Meanwhile, off the coasts of California and Tasmania, overfishing the animal’s natural predators and large-scale change in ocean circulation—believed to be an effect of climate change—have turned vast stretches of seafloor into “urchin barrens” that remind you of moonscapes. The urchins multiply, chew down the kelp and devastate marine ecosystems. “Management of the sea is the only way,” says Sloan.

He culls his wild urchin beds on a five-year rotation, and wants Norway to adopt a hands-on approach—instituting quotas and establishing fishing zones. In return, a hunter of urchins might produce an underwater map or feed them kelp washed ashore when natural supplies are scarce.

***

From a jetty in Nordskot Harbor, Sloan gazes over the sea, but a gray mist obscures the cliffs and slopes. “I’d like to plant maple trees on my land,” he says, a bit wistfully. A neighbor told him the trees wouldn’t produce sap for at least 25 years: “You’ll be very, very old.” Sloan told the neighbor, “That’s not the point. I’m looking to the future.”

Sloan would be happy if the future looked a lot like the present. “I’ve got a smart woman as a wife and an old, fat Labrador,” he says, laughing at the Norwegian jokiness of it all. “I don’t need a Ferrari. I can’t watch more than one TV. I can’t sleep in more than one bed. If you have enough in life, that’s all that matters. I’m just clearing sand off the bottom of the ocean.”

Bookmarked at brandizzi Delicious' sharing tag and expanded by Delicious sharing tag expander.
15 Jul 16:11

The Ocean Is Full of Worms and Gonads and Monsters

by Lynne Elkins

Lynne Elkins’ previous work for The Toast can be found here.

Today, I am not here to talk to you about science*. Instead, I would like to share a truth that you may not have fully realized, which is that the ocean is a horrifying place full of monsters.

You might be thinking, “But I always wanted to be a marine biologist! I love dolphins!” And to be fair, dolphins can blow coordinated hunting bubbles and have names for each other and probably are much less prone to sexual assault than folks like to say. But most of the ocean is not made of dolphins, or even mammals. It is mostly full of worms.

Okay, fine, maybe not “mostly.” or “full.” But there are a lot of worms. Here, again, you might be saying, “But I wanted to be a marine biologist and study things other than charismatic megafauna! Marine worms are beautiful!” Sure, some of the worms have pretty colors and crazy fringes, which they obviously use as a glamour to fool gullible humans. But you are forgetting the most important thing: THEY ARE GIANT WORMS. And some of them look like this:

1200px-Proboscis_worm

Less beautiful.

Don’t get me wrong: marine worms are fascinating. This is because monsters are terrible and fascinating. Consider, for example, the very famous Giant Tube Worms that live around deep sea volcanic vents. This is a 7 foot-long worm that can grow 5 feet in under two years, with no digestive tract, with which is red because it contains hemoglobin. In other words, it is a worm that nearly has blood that is taller than you and uses its mouth as its anus.

(These monstrous properties, of course, are the true reason to celebrate the 1991 discovery of the Tubeworm Barbecue.)

You might now be asking, “But what about non-worm things?” Sure. Let’s talk about some other creatures, like, say, echinoderms. Everyone likes starfish, right? Everything that isn’t hunted by starfish, I guess. Have you ever seen the inside of a sea urchin? I have, and please let me tell you about it: These alien monsters are almost completely hollow, except for a skinny intestinal tube that floats around inside their body, and the whole “Aristotle’s Lantern” skeleton mouth thing, which contains rasping teeth so hard they might be able to grind through rock (debated! these are things you debate about monsters.) The little hole at the top of the spiny shell is, in fact, the anus. Marine animals probably could be classed as horrifying simply based on the positions of their anuses. I would also like to address the whole “five-sided skeleton” thing, which, while interesting, is wrong and should not exist. Also, crinoids (sea lilies and feather stars) were echinoderms that reached a meter tall or more in the geologic past; and now we know that they are, in fact, still around, floating about or walking on their fronds like legs. I have touched them and seen YouTube and can confirm this is true. Summary: echinoderms are monsters.

Moving along: cephalopods, once the enormous monster predators of the oceans, are terrifyingly intelligent, curious, capricious thieves that can squeeze themselves through tiny holes and instantaneously mimic random objects (and to be fair, they still include some enormous predators, such as giant squid.) The mimic octopus takes cephalopod mimicry skills to terrifying heights. Blue-ringed octopods are some of the most venomous creatures on the planet, and they do bite humans. And the extreme deep-sea vampire squid (whose full latin name literally means “vampire squid of Hell”) is blood-red with “limpid, globular eyes,” can release a bioluminescent mucus into the water from its “writhing arms” which blinds opponents in a crazy light show that lasts up to 10 minutes, and can, you know, turn its own body inside out. Of course.

We have not yet discussed isopods. That is mostly because I wanted to delay the horror for myself. They are horrifying for many reasons, such as, for instance, what they look like:

Bathynomus_giganteus

Or this. Or this.

But those examples, while terrible in appearance, are not the worst isopods, which honor is reserved for the parasitic isopods. Those are the ones that attach themselves to the tongues of fish, causing the tongue to wither and fall off; they then take up permanent residence in their host fish’s mouth. Some live off whatever food the fish is eating, while others drink the fish’s own blood. Oh God. Why am I writing about this.

Read more The Ocean Is Full of Worms and Gonads and Monsters at The Toast.

15 Jul 12:02

Crowdsourced Data Reveals Most Beautiful Urban Walking Routes

by Urbanist
[ By WebUrbanist in Destinations & Sights & Travel. ]

best walking routes study

Using a mapping algorithm coupled with citizen reviews of sights and scenery, a team of researchers has developed a way to choose paths through cities based on beauty, quiet and happiness rather than simply the shortest distance between two points.

shortest or beautiful route

The project employed Google Street View and Geograph as well as Flickr images and their metadata to build out an initial estimation of probable best paths, then solicited human feedback (to check and enhance the results) from a group of participants on the website UrbanGems (shown above).

london main sites map

The study, published by Cornell University’s arXiv, came up with a number of route suggestions in Boston and London and contains a number of interesting findings. For starters, the ‘beautiful’ routes were only slightly longer than the shortest routes, and significantly shorter than typical tourist-oriented directions and guided-tour paths. As the algorithm improves, it is increasingly able to generate paths through new cities via metadata alone, reducing reliance on input from people.

beauty and shortest boston

boston main sights map

The project’s creators included Daniele Quercia and Luca Maria Aiello of Yahoo Labs in Barcelona and Rossano Schifanella of the University of Torino, Italy. From their abstract: “When providing directions to a place, web and mobile mapping services are all able to suggest the shortest route. The goal of this work is to automatically suggest routes that are not only short but also emotionally pleasant.

beauty walking route london

shortest walking route london

The assessments are not simply qualitative value judgments, but a hybrid of human and machine input: “Based on a quantitative validation, we find that, compared to the shortest routes, the recommended ones add just a few extra walking minutes and are indeed perceived to be more beautiful, quiet, and happy.”

happy walking path london

quiet walking route london

From UrbanGems: “Buildings and neighbourhoods speak. They speak of egalitarianism or elitism, beauty or ugliness, acceptance or arrogance. The aim of UrbanGems is to identify the visual cues that are generally associated with concepts difficult to define such beauty, happiness, quietness, or even deprivation. The difficult task of deciding what makes a building beautiful, or what is sought after in a quiet location is outsourced to the users of this site using comparisons of pictures. With a comprehensive list of aesthetic virtues at hand, we would be more likely to systematically understand and re-create the environments we intuitively love.”


Want More? Click for Great Related Content on WebUrbanist:

Crowdsourced City: 14 Citizen-Directed Urban Projects

When urban planners and developers want to know what businesses local residents would like in their neighborhoods, where to put new bike lanes, or specific ... Click Here to Read More »»


Urban Jungle Street View: 3D Hack Uses Hidden Depth Data

An explicitly illicit use of dimensional data buried in Google Street View, the Urban Jungle project adds eerie layers of post-apocalyptic green overgrowth to ... Click Here to Read More »»


Nomadic Urbanism: Futuristic Walking City Draws on History

The notion of a mobile city is not new, but in this case, the architect has gone to great lengths to construct a vision that could conceivably be built. So ... Click Here to Read More »»


Share on Facebook

[ By WebUrbanist in Destinations & Sights & Travel. ]

[ WebUrbanist | Archives | Galleries | Privacy | TOS ]


14 Jul 11:14

Folha de S.Paulo - Opinião - Monoglotas de espírito - 14/07/2014

Vinicius Mota

Monoglotas de espírito

SÃO PAULO - A exportação de talentos faz mal ao futebol brasileiro. Os craques têm de ficar perto da torcida e dos treinadores locais. Essa tem sido a solução decantada no interminável debate sobre como revigorar o esporte nacional após a coça da coças, os 7 a 1 do Mineirão.

Giramos, giramos e voltamos ao mesmo lugar. A conclusão de que a exportação de jogadores é problema a ser combatido reincide no atavismo autárquico que impregna a cultura política brasileira e atrasa o país.

Quem deseja usufruir das vantagens do mundo moderno, ser produtivo como os povos mais prósperos, adquirir os saberes mais atualizados, no futebol e fora dele, precisa se abrir, viajar e receber estrangeiros em profusão, exportar e importar em cópia, falar a língua global.

Monoglota de fato, a população brasileira teve a felicidade, durante a Copa, de lidar com turistas de várias nacionalidades nas cidades-sede. A hospitalidade e a cordialidade equilibraram a falta de hábito e de recursos comunicativos. Que tal se tornássemos a experiência mais frequente e menos chocante?

Monoglotas de espírito, dirigentes no futebol e fora dele empastelam a abertura e a modernização. Alguns iludem-se e iludem-nos com ideologias nacionalistas ultrapassadas, como se as dimensões continentais do território e da população transformassem o Brasil, automaticamente, num país que se basta a si mesmo.

A nação que se fecha, evita acordos comerciais, manda poucos trabalhadores e estudantes para fora e pouco recebe os de outros países está condenada à mediocridade. Passará ao largo das rotas de prosperidade na economia, na cultura, na ciência e também no futebol.

Jogadores que foram atuar fora do país experimentam o que há de mais avançado nas práticas futebolísticas. São hoje melhores profissionais do que jamais poderiam tornar-se na triste realidade dos clubes brasileiros. Viva a exportação de craques!

vinimota@uol.com.br

Bookmarked at brandizzi Delicious' sharing tag and expanded by Delicious sharing tag expander.
14 Jul 01:26

A Jellyfish Tank Installed in an Abandoned Building in Liverpool

13 Jul 01:13

fer1972: Today’s Classic: Daedalus and Icarus 1. By Peter Paul...













fer1972:

Today’s Classic: Daedalus and Icarus

1. By Peter Paul Rubens (1636)

2. By Anthony van Dyck (1620)

3. By Andrea Sacchi (1645)

4. By Charles Le Brun (1642)

5. By Frederic Leighton (1869)

6. By Pyotr Ivanovich Sokolov (1777)

13 Jul 01:13

honkshu: 心中天網島 Shinjū: Ten no Amijima (Double Suicide) - 篠田 正浩...















honkshu:

心中天網島 Shinjū: Ten no Amijima (Double Suicide)

- 篠田 正浩 Shinoda Masahiro(1969)

13 Jul 00:50

Virtude rara

by Míriam Leitão
 Míriam Leitão - O Globo

Enviado por Míriam Leitão e Alvaro Gribel - |

Coluna no GLOBO

Virtude rara

“O Brasil sai da euforia para a tristeza sem passar pelo ressentimento.” A frase é do embaixador Marcos Azambuja, tentando consolar amigos diante da derrota humilhante da seleção brasileira esta semana. Lembrava que nós não culpamos os outros, mas sim a nós mesmos, e que os jogadores brasileiros não reagiram de forma truculenta em campo, mesmo diante de derrota tão absoluta.

Ele diz estar recebendo telefonemas de amigos de vários países que dizem, em elogio às nossas virtudes, palavras que ele resume assim: “Marcos, esse seu país não existe.” O melhor de nós mesmos, a alegria em receber, o clima de encantamento em que envolvemos os hóspedes foram exibidos nesta Copa.

A visão pode ser resultado do inarredável otimismo com que o embaixador vê o Brasil, mas ele não pode ser acusado de falar por desconhecimento do temperamento de outros povos, já que viveu e representou o Brasil em outros países. Quando era embaixador em Paris, estava ao lado das autoridades francesas quando perdemos a final por 3 a 0, gols de Zinédine Zidane e Emmanuel Petit. “Foi horrível, eu tive que dar os parabéns para as autoridades francesas e estava dilacerado. Depois, fui cumprimentar os jogadores no vestiário. Eles eram tão jovens, meu Deus!”

Se atravessarmos este fim de semana sem que a hostilidade esportiva entre brasileiros e argentinos provoque qualquer episódio desagradável, teremos passado bem por uma parte da Copa do Mundo. O brasileiro mostrou o melhor dele mesmo, tentando compensar falhas nas obras atrasadas de infraestrutura.

Ninguém poderá dizer que é o vencedor político da parte que deu certo na Copa, e isso é ótimo. Os assuntos transcorrem em campos muito distantes. A política terá seu tempo, que começa agora, em que os candidatos tentarão conquistar o voto dos eleitores com jingles, frases criadas pelos marqueteiros, filmes motivacionais e, eventualmente, propostas. O triste é que as propostas ficam quase sempre em segundo plano.

A economia não ganhou muito com a Copa. Houve investimentos, mas que ficaram incompletos, e sobre alguns pairam dúvidas a respeito dos custos e opções feitas. Não houve o que o país sonhou como legado da Copa, como obras estruturantes de um novo padrão de mobilidade urbana. No trimestre anterior à Copa não houve crescimento econômico provocado por algum aumento de atividade. Pelo contrário, as previsões de crescimento estão murchando para o ano.

Os excessivos feriados e interrupções da atividade produtiva, para superar os problemas de mobilidade nas cidades-sede em dias de jogos, e mais a necessária parada para as disputas nas quais estava a seleção brasileira reduziram ainda mais o ritmo da economia. Em alguns países que sediaram o evento, o PIB teve aumento devido à Copa, em si. Em outros, isso não aconteceu. Ficamos, infelizmente, no segundo grupo.

Há novo evento internacional marcado para daqui a dois anos, e o Brasil pode tirar várias lições da Copa. Treinar mais o ensino de inglês de pessoas que vão lidar com o público porque o país não pode contar apenas com sua simpatia na hora de receber os estrangeiros. Ter um pouco mais de respeito aos prazos fixados pelas autoridades olímpicas. Investir mais em tecnologia de informação. Ter um planejamento urbano que não nos obrigue a suspender atividades educacionais e produtivas só porque há um grande evento internacional acontecendo.

O maior teste da primeira frase deste artigo foi agora. Conseguimos viver a tristeza desta semana sem ressentimentos. Em vez de culpar terceiros, analisamos nossos erros. Tem razão o embaixador: essa é uma das nossas virtudes.

13 Jul 00:46

O Governo Brasileiro Gasta Pouco em Saúde?

by Luiza Niemeyer

Sempre que os problemas da saúde emergem no debate público, uma proposta recorrente é o aumento do nível de gastos. Mas será que o governo brasileiro gasta pouco em saúde?

Um exercício simples de comparação internacional indica que o nível do gasto público em saúde do Brasil é compatível com o de países com renda similar. Esta conclusão é ilustrada no Gráfico 1, que contrapõe o gasto público em saúde per capita com o PIB per capita dos países da OECD[1] e BRICS[2], e revela que o nosso padrão não difere muito dos demais BRICS ou mesmo de países da OECD com renda um pouco mais próxima a nossa como Chile, México ou Turquia[3].

Gráfico 1: Gasto público em saúde per capita e PIB per capita (US$ PPP) – 2011

Fonte: WB/WDI

Fonte: Banco Mundial, WDI

Só que há uma particularidade que difere o Brasil da maioria dos países de renda similar: o tamanho do nosso governo. O gasto público total, como proporção do PIB, alcançava quase 40% em 2011, nível similar ao do grupo de países mais ricos. Por outro lado, apenas 8,7% do total de gastos era destinado à saúde, nível muito inferior ao apresentado pelo mesmo grupo de países. O Gráfico 2 mostra que o nível do gasto de saúde do Brasil, apesar de razoável para os países de renda similar e governo menor, está muito abaixo da média quando se considera o tamanho do governo brasileiro. Além disso, de 2000 a 2012, a proporção dos gastos públicos destinada a saúde pouco variou, revelando a ausência de um esforço para priorizar mais o setor.

Gráfico 2: Gasto público em saúde  (%PIB) e gasto público total (%PIB) – 2011

Fonte: WB/WDI e IMF

Fonte: WB/WDI e IMF

Um aspecto que contribui para dificultar qualquer conclusão são as ambições do SUS. Assim como um indivíduo pode destinar toda sua renda para adquirir um bem de consumo e ainda assim ficar insatisfeito por não possuir o melhor disponível, o mesmo pode acontecer com um país. Nosso sistema público de saúde garante que todos tem acesso (universalidade), a todos os serviços de saúde (integralidade), de forma gratuita (igualdade). Além de ser difícil encontrar qualquer outro país que se comprometa com mais de um desses princípios, todos os países que lograram atingir só a cobertura universal já são mais ricos e gastam mais em saúde do que o Brasil sob qualquer ótica que se avalie. Portanto, se as nossas ambições estiverem acima da nossa capacidade de financiamento, qualquer nível de gasto sempre parecerá insuficiente.

O que essa simples análise indica, portanto, é que os atuais gastos públicos com saúde no Brasil são adequados ao nível de renda do país, mas pouco relevantes dados o tamanho do governo e o que o SUS se compromete a fazer. O pouco espaço para o crescimento de gastos públicos e a perspectiva de gastos crescentes com saúde que surgem com o envelhecimento populacional indicam que, sem uma revisão das atuais prioridades no gasto governamental, é difícil imaginar que o já débil serviço público de saúde não seja comprometido. Desta forma, o debate sobre como e o que financiar na área de saúde terá que entrar na agenda política. Mas independente do rumo escolhido, sempre que as nossas expectativas estiverem além do alcançável com o nosso nível de renda, qualquer nível de gastos não será suficiente.


[1] Grupo de 34 países, em sua maioria, desenvolvidos.

[2] Grupo de países de renda média que inclui Brasil, Rússia, China, Índia e África do Sul

[3] A conclusão não muda na análise que inclui os 190 países disponíveis da base da Organização Mundial de Saúde.

 

13 Jul 00:42

Triumph des sambens

by Tiago de Thuin
A se julgar por parte dos comentários que circulam pelas bocas e teclas em torno da Copa, cada resultado de partida de futebol - aziago ou alvissareiro - seria a representação das qualidades essenciais do povo representado, sejam elas suas virtude e força ou o contrário. Se James fez mais gols que Neymar, é porque o povo colombiano tem uma paixão alegre e saudável pelo futebol, ao contrário do Brasil corrupto e assassino. Se a Argentina foi à final, é porque a raça, a garra, a determinação de um país cujo zagueiro dá o cu pela pátria brilharam. Se a Holanda massacrou a Espanha, é a vitória da alegre e maconheira Holanda sobre o vetusto império espanhol. Se o Brasil venceu Camarões, é porque os africanos - sim, os africanos, é um país só - são crianças inconsequentes, e talvez não seja inteiramente fortuito que o único exemplo pró-brasileiro que achei ter tido do outro lado um time africano. E por aí além, num festival de essencialização, de metonímia, de investimento simbólico, que deve ter rendido sorrisos a Leni Riefenstahl no inferno. Sim, até o inferno tem folga em dias de jogo da Copa.

Até aí, é do jogo, com o perdão do trocadilho. O esporte coletivo internacional tem sido visto por esse prisma desde os seus primórdios, e mesmo o doméstico; Barcelona catalã contra Real Madrid franquista, Flamengo favelado contra Fluminense pó de arroz... a lista é grande. Mas uma dessas manifestações do triunfo da vontade, e uma que deixaria Leni Riefenstahl particularmente sorridente, é a que reza que a vitória acachapante da Alemanha sobre o Brasil seria o triunfo da "seriedade alemã contra a malandragem brasileira." Não difere do resto na sua essencialização de um fato passageiro; afinal, mesmo que acreditássemos que os resultados no futebol demonstram a força de um povo, o Brasil ainda tem cinco copas contra três da Alemanha, que até Domingo quando muito diminui a liderança. Nem a maior população explica tudo, já que o Brasil só superou a Alemanha nesse quesito em 1965, sem nem levar em conta o dinheiro. Também não difere da maioria das outras na hierarquia de povos presente nessas essencializações. Mas talvez seja particularmente forte como triunfo do estereótipo sobre a realidade.

A idéia de uma América do Sul lúdica e uma Europa operosa não resiste às estatísticas de trabalho. Fora as horas trabalhadas - que sempre foram muitas -a América do Sul é cada vez mais operária, e a Europa cada vez menos; um continente industrializa-se e o outro se transforma numa economia de serviços. Mas deixemos isso pra lá, que falar em quem tem mais "seriedade" é coisa pra quem acredita naquelas essências nacionais todas. Vamos reduzir o campo de visão e olhar só para os times. Alguém vê na Alemanha um time sério e vetusto e no Brasil um alegre e festeiro? Eu vejo o contrário, uma Alemanha caindo na gandaia tanto dentro quanto fora do campo, numa ilha tropical, cantando hino do Bahia, fazendo amizade com meio mundo. E um Brasil sisudo, concentrado na fria Teresópolis, sem festa, sem sexo na concentração (e não estou falando do David Luiz não querer, mas de a ninguém ser permitido), sem brincadeira. Um Brasil felipônico, mortalmente sério, que não estava ali pra brincadeira nem dentro nem fora do gramado. Batalhador, com vontade de vencer e não de jogar bonito. Aliás, insuspeito de jogar bonito. Se alguém ganhou, foi justamente a malandragem alemã contra a seriedade brasileira, até em termos bem práticos - o excesso de peso dado à partida, de pressão, resultou no pânico brasileiro. E talvez essa derrota devesse levar ao questionamento da sisudez como da CBF. Sonho, eu sei.

No futebol, claro, essa idéia do vencer e pra isso deixar de lado a alegria vem do acaso de 1982; fora dele, ignoro. Quem sabe veio do futebol mesmo. Mas difunde-se cada vez mais o par de idéias que exalta os vencedores e a seriedade, como se só o que importasse na vida fossem a seriedade e a vitória, como se elas tivessem um valor moral próprio, e esse valor é um valor do peso, da densidade, que rechaça a leveza como leviandade, que significa levar tudo a sério, que vê em cada adversário inimigos a serem derrotados com choro e ranger de dentes. No fundo, tanto o vencedorismo quanto a sisudez são facetas de uma apologética do peso, vitoriana, quase o contrário da leveza com que sonhava Ítalo Calvino em suas Seis Propostas Para o Próximo Milênio. Vitoriana ou stalinista, tanto faz. E estridente, infinitamente estridente. Engana-se quem pensa em vitorianos calados; é a grande era do jornalismo no Tennessee, das jeremíadas, da indignação... o peso só é calado nas próprias fantasias de gravitas romana, a pedra de moinho guincha mais que a roda de brincar. E a alegria - como ser alegre, num mundo de tanta desgraça? Como admitir a alegria, se há coisas importantes em jogo? A alegria é um pecado, um aleijão moral, que nos atrapalha na corrida rumo à sonhada vitória, rumo à utopia, ao paraíso (e ao gozo de ver os inimigos no inferno). O reino de meu pai é outro, mas pelo menos o cristianismo sempre teve festas; hoje o feriado atrapalha o faturamento da Fecomércio em dois ponto quarenta e oito bilhões de bruzudangas.

Se Paolo Rossi em 1982 realmente impulsionou essa corrida ao peso, desconheço. Mas tomara que os sambantes - e vitoriosos -  Klose, Kroos, Özil, Schweinsteiger, Neue, Götze, Gmbh tenham conseguido deixar a lição oposta.


PS Orlando - no livro da Virginia Woolf - via no século XX a libertação dos grilhões vitorianos. A segunda é de lei?
13 Jul 00:32

The Oldest Song In The World Sounds Like The Zelda Theme

by Mallory Ortberg

I mean, obviously everything sounds like the Zelda theme when you play it on a midi keyboard. I’m not trying to make any sweeping claims here. But listen to this:

and tell me it isn’t just this:

and this:

put together.

Oh, also, you can listen to a few minutes of the Epic of Gilgamesh in Akkadian here, while we’re on the subject of ancient Sumer. It doesn’t — I mean, he could be spitting gibberish for all I know, but it sounds authentic.

Read more The Oldest Song In The World Sounds Like The Zelda Theme at The Toast.

13 Jul 00:15

Mental Health Break

by Andrew Sullivan

A music video that catches the eye:

11 Jul 09:36

How to Calm a Friend Who has Made a Disturbing Discovery

by Scott Meyer

Just so you know, the paper edition of Off to Be the Wizard is half price for a limited time. Just Sayin'.

As always, thanks for using my Amazon Affiliate links (USUKCanada).

11 Jul 09:30

Lições de outro campo

by Míriam Leitão
 Míriam Leitão - O Globo

Enviado por MÍriam Leitão - |

COLUNA NO GLOBO

Lições de outro campo

A economia sabe tudo sobre derrotas, recomeços, superações e humilhações externas. Se olharmos através da linha do tempo que nos trouxe até aqui, veremos momentos em que parecíamos destroçados. Houve episódios da renegociação da dívida em que estrangeiros diziam que não tínhamos palavra. O dia do Plano Collor foi um momento de pânico, raiva e dor.

Era uma sexta-feira, os bancos estavam fechados havia três dias, tínhamos que esperar até segunda-feira para saber o que restara nas contas-correntes do que cada família tinha economizado ao longo do tempo. Foi desesperador. Dez milhões de pessoas correram aos bancos na segunda e a fúria era tal que, em uma das fotos que revi, anos depois, uma bancária se agachava atrás do balcão enquanto a multidão gritava descontrolada.

De fato, era forte demais. Uma sensação de ressaca se espalhou pelo país quando enfim entendemos o que as autoridades, de forma atrapalhada, tentavam nos dizer: o dinheiro ficaria prisioneiro do banco por 18 meses, pelo menos. As derrotas dos outros planos econômicos, como o Cruzado, Bresser e Verão, chegaram devagar. Ao longo dos meses a gente ia percebendo que falhara mais uma vez na luta contra a hiperinflação. Era só ver a volta das remarcações, os ágios cobrados nos preços congelados ou o desaparecimento das mercadorias. No Plano Collor, a violência veio de uma vez só. Uma pancada forte. Meio tontos, os brasileiros oscilavam entre a raiva e a apatia ou a tentativa de entender o que estava se passando.

Como foi muito violento, o país quis, num primeiro momento, que nem se tentasse mais controlar a inflação. Alguns ligaram um “deixa pra lá”. Depois, quando a inflação alta voltou a incomodar, o Brasil quis o plano sem traumatismos. E a população se esforçou em entender complexidades da economia, até que se livrou da doença que nos derrotava durante décadas. Por isso, é perigosa qualquer complacência com esse inimigo.

Na economia, aprendemos que não há vitória que não seja construída devagar com alguns elementos básicos: análise sincera do que houve de errado nas derrotas, estabelecimento da meta desejada, persistência na caminhada, mesmo quando o caminho é longo. E mais: jamais considerar que uma derrota, mesmo devastadora, sela o nosso destino.

Na economia, vivemos também o descrédito internacional. Era olhar a cara do mundo e sentir vergonha. Nossa fama era de caloteiros. Nossos negociadores passaram por situação de humilhação diante da arrogância dos credores. Houve uma vez em que negociando com o Clube de Paris, o saudoso Francisco Gros disse: “isso é tudo que o Brasil pode prometer.” Ele era presidente do Banco Central, nós estávamos no começo dos anos 1990, e Clube de Paris é a entidade na qual se negociam as dívidas entre governos. A delegação brasileira estava há dois dias numa maratona de negociação de 48 horas, descansando por revezamento num ônibus estacionado na porta de um prédio em Paris. “O Brasil nunca cumpriu o que prometeu”, disse um dos credores.

A dívida havia sido contraída de forma irresponsável, tratada de forma leviana, durante o governo militar. Erros assim cobram seu preço. O Brasil enfrentou o descrédito, renegociou, pagou num projeto de longo prazo de resgate da credibilidade. A derrota que nos levou à hiperinflação nasceu da soma de pequenos erros que, no dia a dia, pareciam sem importância.

As difíceis travessias econômicas que o país fez ensinam algumas lições para qualquer momento de tristeza. Inclusive no esporte. Recomeçar, fazer um projeto de longo prazo e persistir nele. A cicatriz ficará, mas as vitórias virão se trabalharmos por elas.

11 Jul 09:25

Fuel and Fire

by Greg Ross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theodore_Newman_Kaufman_circa_1940.png

In 1941, New Jersey pacifist Theodore Kaufman self-published Germany Must Perish!, a 104-page booklet advocating the sterilization of the German people and the distribution of their lands. Kaufman was almost a complete nonentity — few shared his views, and the book received few sales or notices. But it made him a giant in Germany, where it became a mainstay of nationalist propaganda, stoking the very fires that Kaufman had hoped to extinguish.

In his diary on Aug. 3, 1941, Joseph Goebbels wrote, “He really could not have done it better and more advantageously for us if he had written the book to order. I will have this book distributed in millions of copies in Germany, above all on the front, and will write a preface and afterword myself. It will be most instructive for every German man and for every German woman to see what would happen to the German people if, as in November 1918, a sign of weakness were given.”

Hitler approved, and soon the propaganda ministry had produced a brochure presenting and commenting on Kaufman’s book. “Above all,” Goebbels wrote, “this brochure will finally and definitively do away with the last remnants of a still-existing softness. In reading this brochure, even the stupidest idiot can figure out what threatens us if we become weak.”

American journalist Howard K. Smith witnessed these effects firsthand in Germany. “No man has ever done so irresponsible a disservice to the cause his nation is fighting and suffering for than [Theodore] Kaufmann,” he wrote. “His half-baked brochure provided the Nazis with one of the best light artillery pieces they have, for, used as the Nazis used it, it served to bolster up that terror which forces Germans who dislike the Nazis to support, fight and die to keep Nazism alive.”

Kaufman protested, weakly, that German anti-Semitism had existed long before his book appeared. But the boost to propaganda was undeniable. “Few Americans have ever heard of a prominent fellow-citizen named Kaufmann,” wrote The Nation in November 1942. “In Germany every child has known of him for a long time. Germans are so well informed about Mr. Kaufmann that the mere mention of his name recalls what he stands for. In one of his recent articles Dr. Goebbels wrote, ‘Thanks to the Jew Kaufmann, we Germans know only too well what to expect in case of defeat.’”

11 Jul 00:42

Lula e FH cooperaram para mudar visão americana sobre PT

Lula e Bush na Casa Branca, antes mesmo da posse do petista como presidente - Roberto Stuckert Filho/10-12-2002

RIO — Quando Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) venceu a primeira eleição para a Presidência da República, em 2002, deputados americanos do Partido Republicano alertaram o então presidente dos Estados Unidos, George W. Bush. Temiam a formação de um "eixo do mal" na América Latina, com a combinação de Lula com o venezuelano Hugo Chávez e o cubano Fidel Castro. Os argumentos alimentavam especulações de calote no mercado financeiro. Assim que as urnas foram apuradas no Brasil, a futura relação de Lula e Bush foi desenganada por políticos, analistas e a imprensa internacional diante de perfis políticos tão distintos: um ex-sindicalista e um conservador. Os anos seguintes mostraram o contrário: os dois conduziram o melhor momento das relações entre os dois países. Os Estados Unidos mudaram o status da sua relação com o Brasil, passando a reconhecê-lo como uma potência emergente.

Essa inversão de expectativas só foi possível por causa de 18 dias intensos de uma ofensiva diplomática comandada, sem alarde, por Lula e pelo então presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso (PSDB) nos bastidores da transição entre os dois governos. A inusitada cooperação entre tucanos e petistas, sob a liderança de dois presidentes, é contada no livro "18 Dias", de Matias Spektor, que será lançado nos próximos dias pela Objetiva.

Doutor em Relações Internacionais por Oxford (Inglaterra) e professor de Relações Internacionais da Fundação Getulio Vargas, Spektor pesquisou arquivos como os do Itamaraty e do Departamento de Estado americano por quatro anos para reconstituir os passos da força-tarefa entre o telefonema que Lula recebeu de Bush no dia seguinte à sua eleição e o convite oficial para uma visita à Casa Branca, que aconteceu em 10 de dezembro de 2012.

Spektor também entrevistou diplomatas e altos funcionários dos dois países, além de Lula e FH. Ele ouviu ainda a ex-secretária de Estado americana Condoleezza Rice, que na época era assessora de segurança nacional de Bush.

BRASIL PASSOU A SER ALIADO PREFERENCIAL

Faltavam na Casa Branca especialistas sobre o Brasil para preparar Bush para lidar com Lula. A equipe de Condoleezza então aplicou para o país o mesmo modelo que havia acabado de montar para uma nova relação com a Índia, cujo diálogo com os Estados Unidos também era considerado problemático. A partir dessa analogia, conta Spektor, o Brasil passou a ser visto pelos americanos como um aliado preferencial, um país-chave do mundo emergente, ainda antes da institucionalização dos Brics (Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul).

Lula foi considerado ousado pelos diplomatas dos dois países ao pedir diretamente a Bush, ao telefone, um encontro ainda antes da posse. Ele tinha pressa em convencer que não era o bicho-papão pintado pelos republicanos. O desafio era atrair a atenção de Bush, mais envolvido com o terrorismo e as ações militares no Oriente Médio, para reduzir as desconfianças do mercado, que apostava forte contra a moeda brasileira. A desvalorização do real ameaçava o legado que Fernando Henrique tinha a deixar para Lula e sua biografia. O tucano colocou seus ministros e embaixadores para abrir caminho para os petistas no governo americano. Foi o medo de uma crise econômica mais grave que uniu os dois rivais em torno de um objetivo comum: mudar radicalmente a visão dos Estados Unidos sobre Lula. Deu certo.

Bookmarked at brandizzi Delicious' sharing tag and expanded by Delicious sharing tag expander.
10 Jul 20:31

bunnyfood: (via lawebloca:video ) VELHO…













bunnyfood:

(via lawebloca:video )

VELHO…

10 Jul 19:06

ewallisartist: Undressing 12x12 o/l, Eric Wallis 2005



ewallisartist:

Undressing 12x12 o/l, Eric Wallis 2005

10 Jul 19:06

Secretaria confirma terceiro caso de febre chikungunha no estado

Teste mostra o tipo de vírus de cada mosquito - Latinstock

RIO - A Secretaria estadual de Saúde confirmou mais um caso de febre chikungunha no estado do Rio, somando três casos no estado do Rio de Janeiro, todos de pacientes infectados no exterior. A doença, que tem sintomas semelhantes aos da dengue também é transmitida pelo mosquito Aedes aegypti. A Secretaria informou que está monitorando os casos suspeitos notificados e realiza, em conjunto com as secretarias municipais de Saúde, as ações de contenção e controle da doença. No entanto, apesar de representar um alerta, não há indícios de transmissão de nenhum caso no Brasil.

— Embora um dos transmissores do vírus seja o Aedes aegypti, também transmissor da dengue, os casos de febre chikungunha que foram confirmados tratam-se de “casos importados”, ou seja, a contaminação ocorreu fora do país. No Brasil, apesar de existirem condições ambientais, com a presença do mosquito vetor, mas não há evidência de circulação do vírus — explica Alexandre Chieppe, superintendência de Vigilância Epidemiológica e Ambiental.

Sobre os casos de contaminação, Alexandre Chieppe esclareceu que foram feitos exames laboratoriais específicos para confirmação e que as pessoas estão bem clinicamente. Como medida preventiva, foi feito manejo ambiental próximo as residências e locais de trabalho. A precaução tende a ser potencializada com as condutas já preconizadas para o combate ao Aedes aepypti, como evitar o armazenamento de água de forma inadequada em recipientes.

Seus sintomas são febre alta, dor muscular e nas articulações, cefaleia e exantema (erupção cutânea que ocorre em consequência de doenças agudas provocadas por vírus), que costumam durar de três a dez dias. Sua letalidade, segundo a Organização Pan-Americana de Saúde, é rara e menos frequente que nos casos de dengue. O tratamento é feito para combater os sintomas, que são tratados com medicação para a febre e as dores articulares com anti-inflamatórios. É recomendado repouso absoluto ao paciente, que deve beber líquidos em abundância. Apesar de causar dor intensa e por mais tempo que a dengue, a febre chikungunha não causa a forma hemorrágica e é rara a ocorrência de complicações graves. Também não há registros de morte em decorrência da doença.

Bookmarked at brandizzi Delicious' sharing tag and expanded by Delicious sharing tag expander.