Si voglia o meno, le femmine sono decorative, ovviamente se belle e ben curate. Le femmine ben lo sanno, e come sempre succede, tutto ha un prezzo.
Nella Silicon Valley scorrono fiumi di denaro, specialmente di denaro pubblico sotto forma di commesse, finanziamenti di ricerca e rivoli vari. E le giovani femmine sono sensori sensibilissimi al denaro: hanno il fiuto di un setter. Lo localizzano anche se ottimamente mimetizzato al fisco ed ai pubblicani.
Sì, d’accordo: in Silicon Valley tutti sono liberal democratici, ma non intendono per questo privarsi della presenza muliebre. Le colleghe meglio tenerle alla larga: se si guadagna più di trecentomila dollari l’anno se ne troverà sempre qualcuna disposta ad affermare piangendo che fu molestata in ascensore da un bruto maschilista che aveva guardato con insistenza i suoi glutei, fatto che la aveva poi turbata per oltre quindici anni, facendole perdere molte occasioni nella sua lunga carriera di excort.
Ma il liberal democratici sono pratici e fantasiosi.
«“Ambiance and atmosphere models” contractually obligated to pretend they’re party guests are in record demand from local agencies»
«Along with a seemingly endless string of harassment and discrimination scandals, Silicon Valley’s homogeneity has a more trivial side effect: boring holiday parties»
«Local modeling agencies, which work with Facebook- and Google-size companies as well as much smaller businesses and the occasional wealthy individual, say a record number of tech companies are quietly paying $50 to $200 an hour for each model hired solely to chat up attendees»
«he company, which she wouldn’t name, has handpicked the models based on photos, made them sign nondisclosure agreements, and given them names of employees to pretend they’re friends with, in case anyone asks why he’s never seen them around the foosball table.»
«So far this year, his models have been asked to dress up in outfits based on The Price Is Right and like Elizabethan nobles or forest nymphs to accommodate a slightly confused medieval theme.»
«Holiday parties have featured prominently in several harassment stories in recent months. As Bloomberg reported in November, prominent venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar allegedly slipped his hand up the leg of Austin Geidt, Uber’s then-head of global expansion, at the company’s 2014 holiday party. (He’s denied the allegations, and Geidt didn’t comment on them.)»
«Silicon Valley doesn’t have the best reputation.»
* * * * * * * *
Già: Silicon Valley non gode buona reputazione. È per queste che le ragazze fanno la fila e ne fanno di cotte e di crude per essere ammesse in quel ristrettissimo ambiente. Incastrare un Shervin Pishevar rende anche una milionata. Se a palpeggiare fosse stato un fattorino, sarebbe bastato un ceffone.
Tutte hanno firmato il protocollo di intesa, una sorta di consenso informato.
Liberal democratici, sì, va bene. Ma sprovvidi sicuramente no.
“Ambiance and atmosphere models” contractually obligated to pretend they’re party guests are in record demand from local agencies.
Along with a seemingly endless string of harassment and discrimination scandals, Silicon Valley’s homogeneity has a more trivial side effect: boring holiday parties. A fete meant to retain all your talented engineers is almost certain to wind up with a rather same-y crowd, made up mostly of guys. At this year’s holiday parties, however, there’ll be a surprising influx of attractive women, and a few pretty men, mingling with the engineers. They’re being paid to.
Local modeling agencies, which work with Facebook- and Google-size companies as well as much smaller businesses and the occasional wealthy individual, say a record number of tech companies are quietly paying $50 to $200 an hour for each model hired solely to chat up attendees. For a typical party, scheduled for the weekend of Dec. 8, Cre8 Agency LLC is sending 25 women and 5 men, all good-looking, to hang out with “pretty much all men” who work for a large gaming company in San Francisco, says Cre8 President Farnaz Kermaani. The company, which she wouldn’t name, has handpicked the models based on photos, made them sign nondisclosure agreements, and given them names of employees to pretend they’re friends with, in case anyone asks why he’s never seen them around the foosball table.
“The companies don’t want their staff to be talking to someone and think, Oh, this person was hired to socialize with me,” says Kermaani, who’s sending models to seven tech parties in the same weekend.
While this sounds crazy after a year packed with harrowing stories of sexual harassment, abuse, and discrimination—a tidal wave that started in San Francisco, with Uber Technologies Inc.—it’s part of an older trend. Tech companies have long used models to run their booths at trade shows such as CES in Las Vegas, hype up crowds at product launches, and direct foot traffic at conferences. That said, this year’s record-setting requests for the minglers, known as “ambiance and atmosphere models,” are a step beyond what the industry has seen before, says Chris Hanna, who’s run TSM Agency since 2004 and counts among his clients “one of the largest search engines in the world.”
“Traditionally, if I go back, say, over the last five years, if people requested these types of models, it was more for specific responsibilities,” Hanna says. “ ‘Be a hostess.’ ‘Show them the elevator.’ Now they’re trending more toward the fun, the atmosphere.” That includes costume parties, he says. So far this year, his models have been asked to dress up in outfits based on The Price Is Right and like Elizabethan nobles or forest nymphs to accommodate a slightly confused medieval theme.
The agencies say clothing stipulations help them screen for ulterior motives. Olya Ishchukova, chief executive officer of Models in Tech, says she frequently rejects company requests for cleavage and short-shorts. When a client recently asked for Pink Panther-themed latex bodysuits, “I pretty much explained to him that this is not what we do—and that could actually hurt his business” if the public found out, she says. She turned down the gig.
Ishchukova says she prefers not to send models on atmosphere jobs without specific tasks such as checking coats or serving food. Such tasks help remind everyone “they’re there for work, and nothing extra is going to happen,” she says. Hanna’s agency is among those with a zero-drinks rule for models on the job. Most models’ contracts say they won’t exchange contact information with party guests, and that gets tougher to handle with grace when they’re legally bound to pretend they’re guests, too.
The guests, of course, are generally less restrained. Holiday parties have featured prominently in several harassment stories in recent months. As Bloomberg reported in November, prominent venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar allegedly slipped his hand up the leg of Austin Geidt, Uber’s then-head of global expansion, at the company’s 2014 holiday party. (He’s denied the allegations, and Geidt didn’t comment on them.)
Vox Media Inc. is limiting employees to two drinks apiece at its Dec. 12 holiday party to curb “unprofessional behavior,” but so far it’s the exception. Cre8’s Kermaani visits the startups herself to get a read on the environment and her models’ safety. “If somebody is creepy toward me, and I’m the owner of the company, I can guarantee they’ll be creepy to the models,” she says. “Silicon Valley doesn’t have the best reputation.”
Non ci voleva molta fantasia per comprendere come il campo fosse di consistente interesse militare.
In questi quaranta anni sono stati compiuti consistenti progressi, che hanno generato, inter alias, il Champ.
«The Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) is a joint concept technology demonstration led by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base to develop an air-launched directed-energy weapon capable of incapacitating or damaging electronic systems.
On October 22, 2012, Boeing announced a successful test of the missile. CHAMP took out seven different targets before self-destructing over empty desert.
The U.S. Air Force expects to have technology for a steerable counter-electronics weapon “available” in 2016, when a multi-shot, multi-target, high-power microwave (HPM) package will be tested aboard an AGM-86 ALCM. By the mid-2020s, HPM weapons are expected to be integrated onto a “JASSM-ER-type weapon,” and on small reusable platforms like the F-35 Lightning II and unmanned aerial vehicles. HPM weapons are not yet a program of record, but they are desired in situations where one target building needs to be engaged and shut down, while not affecting the buildings around it. Other potential improvements could include increasing autonomy and putting it on hypersonic missiles.
The CHAMP is superior to other electronic warfare weapons because it destroys electronics, rather than jamming which temporarily affects systems that come back online when it stops being applied. The Air Force has two separate “capability portfolios” for weapons and electronic warfare equipment which have been having trouble joining to produce an operational CHAMP system, so a cross-functional study is to be delivered in summer 2015. Congress has suggested repurposing excess cruise missiles demilitarized under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to turn them into CHAMP weapons without violating it. On 14 May 2015, the Air Force nominated the Lockheed Martin JASSM-ER as the optimal air vehicle to carry the CHAMP payload. CHAMP is capable of up to 100 shots per sortie.» [Fonte]
«The U.S. has microwave weapons that proponents believe could stop North Korea from launching missiles by frying their electronics»
«The weapons were discussed at an August White House meeting related to North Korea»
«The microwave weapons, known as CHAMPs, are fitted into an air-launched cruise missile and delivered from B-52 bombers. With a range of 700 miles, they can fly into enemy airspace at low altitude and emit sharp pulses of microwave energy to disable electronic systems.»
«These high-powered microwave signals are very effective at disrupting and possibly disabling electronic circuits»
«Advocates say they could be used to stop North Korea from launching missiles by targeting the ground controls and the circuitry in the missiles themselves»
«Command and control centers are filled with electronic infrastructure which is highly vulnerable to high powered microwaves»
«By October 2012, according to Air Force documents, CHAMP was ready for an operational test. A B-52 bomber launched the missile over the Utah Test and Training Range, a 2,500-square-mile testing area larger than Delaware. Mocked-up buildings were rigged with communications and computer systems that simulated possible enemy capabilities»
* * * * * * *
Gli Stati Uniti, e con loro le altre due superpotenze, hanno in arsenale tutta una congerie di armamenti altamente sofisticati, sia di attacco sia di difesa.
Sarebbe davvero ingenuo pensare che gli stati maggiori pubblicizzassero tutti i marchingegni disponibili, ma qualche notizia filtra pur sempre dalle strette maglie del riserbo. Spesso informazioni frammentarie ma chiaramente intendibili da quanti ne abbiano pratica.
La Korea del Nord riesce al momento a costruire missili balistici, ma è priva di tutto quel contesto di armamenti al contorno che li rendono effettivamente operativi. Non si vuol dire che siano fuochi di artificio, ma non poi che siano poi molto di più.
The U.S. has microwave weapons that proponents believe could stop North Korea from launching missiles by frying their electronics.
The weapons were discussed at an August White House meeting related to North Korea, according to The microwave weapons, known as CHAMPs, are fitted into an air-launched cruise missile and delivered from B-52 bombers. With a range of 700 miles, they can fly into enemy airspace at low altitude and emit sharp pulses of microwave energy to disable electronic systems.
“These high-powered microwave signals are very effective at disrupting and possibly disabling electronic circuits,” said Mary Lou Robinson, who heads development of the weapons at the Air Force Research Laboratory in Albuquerque, in an exclusive interview with NBC News.
U.S. officials with direct knowledge.
Advocates say they could be used to stop North Korea from launching missiles by targeting the ground controls and the circuitry in the missiles themselves. The weapons are not currently operational.
How does a high-power microwave (HPM) weapon work?
“Think about when you put something in your microwave that has metal on it,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. “You know how badly that goes? Imagine directing those microwaves at someone’s electronics.”
Sen. Heinrich, a member of the Armed Services Committee, began his career as an engineer at the Air Force Research Laboratory in Albuquerque.
“Command and control centers are filled with electronic infrastructure which is highly vulnerable to high powered microwaves,” said ret. Lt. Gen. David Deptula, who ran the air wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and retired as the head of Air Force intelligence.
The Air Force and other government agencies have been working on the weaponization of microwaves for over two decades. Various emitters have been employed on the ground — in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have been used to disable improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and small drones.
But turning a high-power microwave into a strategic weapon was slowed by the need to reduce the size and weight of the emitter and then match it with an onboard power source sufficient to drive the microwave pulses.
The Air Force Research Laboratory began work on CHAMP, which stands for Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project, in April 2009. The lab fitted the HPM emitter into a non-nuclear version of a Boeing-built air-launched cruise missile.
By October 2012, according to Air Force documents, CHAMP was ready for an operational test. A B-52 bomber launched the missile over the Utah Test and Training Range, a 2,500-square-mile testing area larger than Delaware. Mocked-up buildings were rigged with communications and computer systems that simulated possible enemy capabilities.
Many of the targets, according to internal CHAMP budget documents obtained by NBC News, involved “representative WMD production equipment” found in Iran and North Korea.
“It was as close to the real thing as we could get,” Keith Coleman, CHAMP program manager for Boeing, said after the test.
“It absolutely did exactly what we thought it was going to do,” said Robinson. “We had several different target classes in those facilities, and we predicted with almost 100 percent accuracy … which systems were going to be affected, which systems failed, and how.”
The 2012 test, the only one so far declassified by the Pentagon, has been followed by additional tests and various experiments to advance the microwave technology. A new power source was incorporated, turning the microwave weapon into what the Air Force calls “Super CHAMP.”
According to a December 2016 Air Force Research Laboratory document, the low-flying missile is now “capable of flying into a contested area and disabling an adversary’s electronic systems.”
Robinson said “there is no doubt” in her mind that HPM weapons work.
Could a high-power microwave weapon actually be used against North Korea?
Deptula said he believed the U.S. could use an HPM to disable a ballistic missile on a North Korean launch pad, and that there are many advantages to using microwave weapons in a North Korean scenario.
They work in all weather, said Deptula, which helps in the Korean climate, and “they’re employed at the speed of light. You can’t get much faster than that in terms of achieving desired effects.”
The main operational constraint, Robinson said, is that the microwaves from the CHAMP emitter “aren’t very far-ranging.”
Robinson said that in order to disable a missile or launcher’s electronics, CHAMP would have to get “close” to the target. How close is classified, but “it’s not tens of feet,” said Robinson.
Sen. Heinrich said the challenges to using the weapon are “less technical and more mental. You spend years trying to perfect these things, and the tendency in the Pentagon is oftentimes to continue to try to perfect something. My tendency is to say, ‘Hey, we’ve got something that really works. Let’s take those things and put them into the hands of our men and women in uniform.'”
Deptula adds that one of the differences in using microwaves as opposed to explosives is assessing the effects — the destruction they wreak is not visible.
But Deptula said that “there are means to determine whether or not you’ve achieved your effects beyond the traditional battle damage assessment using photography.”
Speaking in February 2016, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle said that a number of high-power microwave units were being kept as “weapons to use in a contingency.”
Robinson said that “it would take a little bit of time” to make the missiles operational. Two Air Force officials with knowledge of the current plans and capabilities say that CHAMP could be ready for use quickly, possibly within days.
The U.S. has weapons that could dismantle North Korean missiles by firing microwave energy to interfere with ground controls and power circuits within the missiles themselves, NBC reports, citing sources with knowledge of a White House conversation related to the North Korean threat.
The details, per NBC: The microwave weapons can be fit onto air-launched cruise missiles and released from B-52 bombers. They can fly into enemy airspace at low altitudes to fire off microwaves. A word of caution: We have no real indication as yet that such a strategy would be attempted, or prove effective, if the situation should arise.
Punti chiave. Ricordiamo come la lettura del testo completo sarebbe necessaria per comprendere a fondo la portata di questa raccolta di frasi. Il testo completo conta 230 pagine, ma vale la pena di leggerle.
«Global growth will slow, just as increasingly complex global challenges impend»
«An ever-widening range of states, organizations, and empowered individuals will shape geopolitics»
«the emerging global landscape is drawing to a close an era of American dominance following the Cold War»
«Doing so domestically would be the end of democracy, resulting in authoritarianism or instability or both»
«erosion of norms for conflict prevention and human rights will encourage China and Russia to check US influence»
«raising the specter of drained welfare coffers and increased competition for jobs, and reinforcing nativist, anti-elite impulses»
«a restructuring of the global economy that leads to long periods of slow or no growth»
«the trends of rising nationalism, changing conflict patterns, emerging disruptive technologies, and decreasing global cooperation might combine to increase the risk of interstate conflict»
«growing public expectations but diminishing capacity of national governments open space for local governments and private actors, challenging traditional assumptions about what governing means»
«China will attempt to shift to a consumer-driven economy from its longstanding export and investment focus»
«Populism will increase on the right and the left, threatening liberalism. Some leaders will use nationalism to shore up control»
«Managing global issues will become harder as actors multiply—to include NGOs, corporations, and empowered individuals—resulting in more ad hoc, fewer encompassing efforts.»
«Pechino, secondo il report, è destinata, insieme alla Russia, a scalzare definitivamente gli Stati Uniti dal ruolo di unica superpotenza mondiale. In quest’ottica anche l’Europa uscirebbe dalla sfera d’influenza americana per entrare in quella euroasiatica»
* * * * * * *
«Thinking about the future is vital but hard. Crises keep intruding, making it all but impossible to look beyond daily headlines to what lies over the horizon. In those circumstances, thinking “outside the box,” to use the cliché, too often loses out to keeping up with the inbox. That is why every four years the National Intelligence Council (NIC) undertakes a major assessment of the forces and choices shaping the world before us over the next two decades.
This version, the sixth in the series, is titled, “Global Trends: The Paradox of Progress,” and we are proud of it. It may look like a report, but it is really an invitation, an invitation to discuss, debate and inquire further about how the future could unfold. Certainly, we do not pretend to have the definitive “answer.”»
«Long-term thinking is critical to framing strategy. The Global Trends series pushes us to reexamine key assumptions, expectations, and uncertainties about the future. In a very messy and interconnected world, a longer perspective requires us to ask hard questions about which issues and choices will be most consequential in the decades ahead–even if they don’t necessarily generate the biggest headlines. A longer view also is essential because issues like terrorism, cyberattacks, biotechnology, and climate change invoke high stakes and will require sustained collaboration to address.»
«The Future Summarized.
We are living a paradox: The achievements of the industrial and information ages are shaping a world to come that is both more dangerous and richer with opportunity than ever before. Whether promise or peril prevails will turn on the choices of humankind. The progress of the past decades is historic—connecting people, empowering individuals, groups, and states, and lifting a billion people out of poverty in the process. But this same progress also spawned shocks like the Arab Spring, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, and the global rise of populist, anti-establishment politics. These shocks reveal how fragile the achievements have been, underscoring deep shifts in the global landscape that portend a dark and difficult near future.
The next five years will see rising tensions within and between countries. Global growth will slow, just as increasingly complex global challenges impend. An ever-widening range of states, organizations, and empowered individuals will shape geopolitics. For better and worse, the emerging global landscape is drawing to a close an era of American dominance following the Cold War. So, too, perhaps is the rules-based international order that emerged after World War II. It will be much harder to cooperate internationally and govern in ways publics expect. Veto players will threaten to block collaboration at every turn, while information “echo chambers” will reinforce countless competing realities, undermining shared understandings of world events.
Underlying this crisis in cooperation will be local, national, and international differences about the proper role of government across an array of issues ranging from the economy to the environment, religion, security, and the rights of individuals. Debates over moral boundaries—to whom is owed what—will become more pronounced, while divergence in values and interests among states will threaten international security. It will be tempting to impose order on this apparent chaos, but that ultimately would be too costly in the short run and would fail in the long. Dominating empowered, proliferating actors in multiple domains would require unacceptable resources in an era of slow growth, fiscal limits, and debt burdens. Doing so domestically would be the end of democracy, resulting in authoritarianism or instability or both. Although material strength will remain essential to geopolitical and state power, the most powerful actors of the future will draw on networks, relationships, and information to compete and cooperate. This is the lesson of great power politics in the 1900s, even if those powers had to learn and relearn it. The US and Soviet proxy wars, especially in Vietnam and Afghanistan, were a harbinger of the post-Cold War conflicts and today’s fights in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia in which less powerful adversaries deny victory through asymmetric strategies, ideology, and societal tensions. The threat from terrorism will expand in the coming decades as the growing prominence of small groups and individuals use new technologies, ideas, and relationships to their advantage.
Meanwhile, states remain highly relevant. China and Russia will be emboldened, while regional aggressors and nonstate actors will see openings to pursue their interests. Uncertainty about the United States, an inward-looking West, and erosion of norms for conflict prevention and human rights will encourage China and Russia to check US influence. In doing so, their “gray zone” aggression and diverse forms of disruption will stay below the threshold of hot war but bring profound risks of miscalculation. Overconfidence that material strength can manage escalation will increase the risks of interstate conflict to levels not seen since the Cold War. Even if hot war is avoided, the current pattern of “international cooperation where we can get it”—such as on climate change—masks significant differences in values and interests among states and does little to curb assertions of dominance within regions. These trends are leading to a spheres of influence world.
Nor is the picture much better on the home front for many countries. While decades of global integration and advancing technology enriched the richest and lifted that billion out of poverty, mostly in Asia, it also hollowed out Western middle classes and stoked pushback against globalization. Migrant flows are greater now than in the past 70 years, raising the specter of drained welfare coffers and increased competition for jobs, and reinforcing nativist, anti-elite impulses. Slow growth plus technology-induced disruptions in job markets will threaten poverty reduction and drive tensions within countries in the years to come, fueling the very nationalism that contributes to tensions between countries.
Yet this dreary near future is hardly cast in stone. Whether the next five or 20 years are brighter—or darker—will turn on three choices: How will individuals, groups, and governments renegotiate their expectations of one another to create political order in an era of empowered individuals and rapidly changing economies? To what extent will major state powers, as well as individuals and groups, craft new patterns or architectures of international cooperation and competition? To what extent will governments, groups, and individuals prepare now for multifaceted global issues like climate change and transformative technologies?»
«Islands investigates a restructuring of the global economy that leads to long periods of slow or no growth, challenging both traditional models of economic prosperity and the presumption that globalization will continue to expand»
«Orbits explores a future of tensions created by competing major powers seeking their own spheres of influence while attempting to maintain stability at home. It examines how the trends of rising nationalism, changing conflict patterns, emerging disruptive technologies, and decreasing global cooperation might combine to increase the risk of interstate conflict. This scenario emphasizes the policy choices ahead for governments that would reinforce stability and peace or further exacerbate tensions. It features a nuclear weapon used in anger, which turns out to concentrate global minds so that it does not happen again.»
«Communities shows how growing public expectations but diminishing capacity of national governments open space for local governments and private actors, challenging traditional assumptions about what governing means. Information technology remains the key enabler, and companies, advocacy groups, charities, and local governments prove nimbler than national governments in delivering services to sway populations in support of their agendas. Most national governments resist, but others cede some power to emerging networks. Everywhere, from the Middle East to Russia, control is harder.»
«As the paradox of progress implies, the same trends generating near-term risks also can create opportunities for better outcomes over the long term. If the world were fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of these opportunities, the future would be more benign than our three scenarios suggest. In the emerging global landscape, rife with surprise and discontinuity, the states and organizations most able to exploit such opportunities will be those that are resilient, enabling them to adapt to changing conditions, persevere in the face of unexpected adversity, and take actions to recover quickly. They will invest in infrastructure, knowledge, and relationships that allow them to manage shock—whether economic, environmental, societal, or cyber. Similarly, the most resilient societies will likely be those that unleash and embrace the full potential of all individuals—whether women and minorities or those battered by recent economic and technological trends.
They will be moving with, rather than against, historical currents, making use of the everexpanding scope of human skill to shape the future. In all societies, even in the bleakest circumstances, there will be those who choose to improve the welfare, happiness, and security of others—employing transformative technologies to do so at scale. While the opposite will be true as well—destructive forces will be empowered as never before—the central puzzle before governments and societies is how to blend individual, collective, and national endowments in a way that yields sustainable security, prosperity, and hope.»
«Global Trends and Key Implications Through 2035
The rich are aging, the poor are not. Working-age populations are shrinking in wealthy countries, China, and Russia
but growing in developing, poorer countries, particularly in Africa and South Asia, increasing economic, employment,
urbanization, and welfare pressures and spurring migration. Training and continuing education will be crucial in developed and developing countries alike.
The global economy is shifting. Weak economic growth will persist in the near term. Major economies will confront
shrinking workforces and diminishing productivity gains while recovering from the 2008-09 financial crisis with high
debt, weak demand, and doubts about globalization. China will attempt to shift to a consumer-driven economy from its longstanding export and investment focus. Lower growth will threaten poverty reduction in developing countries. Technology is accelerating progress but causing discontinuities. Rapid technological advancements will increase the pace of change and create new opportunities but will aggravate divisions between winners and losers. Automation and artificial intelligence threaten to change industries faster than economies can adjust, potentially displacing workers and limiting the usual route for poor countries to develop. Biotechnologies such as genome editing will revolutionize medicine and other fields, while sharpening moral differences.
Ideas and Identities are driving a wave of exclusion. Growing global connectivity amid weak growth will increase tensions within and between societies. Populism will increase on the right and the left, threatening liberalism. Some leaders will use nationalism to shore up control. Religious influence will be increasingly consequential and more authoritative than many governments. Nearly all countries will see economic forces boost women’s status and leadership roles, but backlash also will occur.
Governing is getting harder. Publics will demand governments deliver security and prosperity, but flat revenues, distrust, polarization, and a growing list of emerging issues will hamper government performance. Technology will expand the range of players who can block or circumvent political action. Managing global issues will become harder as actors multiply—to include NGOs, corporations, and empowered individuals—resulting in more ad hoc, fewer encompassing efforts.
The nature of conflict is changing. The risk of conflict will increase due to diverging interests among major powers,
an expanding terror threat, continued instability in weak states, and the spread of lethal, disruptive technologies. Disrupting societies will become more common, with long-range precision weapons, cyber, and robotic systems to target infrastructure from afar, and more accessible technology to create weapons of mass destruction.
Climate change, environment, and health issues will demand attention. A range of global hazards pose imminent and longer-term threats that will require collective action to address—even as cooperation becomes harder. More extreme weather, water and soil stress, and food insecurity will disrupt societies. Sea-level rise, ocean acidification, glacial melt, and pollution will change living patterns. Tensions over climate change will grow. Increased travel and poor health infrastructure will make infectious diseases harder to manage.
These trends will converge at an unprecedented pace to make governing and cooperation harder and to change the nature of power—fundamentally altering the global landscape. Economic, technological and security trends, especially, will expand the number of states, organizations, and individuals able to act in consequential ways. Within states, political order will remain elusive and tensions high until societies and governments renegotiate their expectations of one another. Between states, the post-Cold War, unipolar moment has passed and the post-1945 rules based international order may be fading too. Some major powers and regional aggressors will seek to assert interests through force but will find results fleeting as they discover traditional, material forms of power less able to secure and sustain outcomes in a context of proliferating veto players.»
L’intelligence USA ha delineato come potrebbe essere il mondo nel 2035. Diciotto anni possono sembrare un lasso di tempo molto breve per poter osservare dei cambiamenti radicali. Eppure molti osservatori sono concordi nel ritenere i prossimi venti/trent’anni come i più rivoluzionari di tutta la storia del genere umano. Inoltre basta guardarsi alle spalle e osservare i cambiamenti avvenuti nei vent’anni precedenti, per verificare come tale lasso di tempo sia più che sufficiente per dei mutamenti radicali. Diciotto anni fa il mondo doveva ancora assistere al crollo delle Torri Gemelle, alla conseguente guerra al Terrore, agli interventi militari in Afghanistan, Iraq e Libia, nonché alla crisi finanziaria del 2008. Insomma cambiamenti sconvolgenti.
Il paradosso del progresso.
Ci ha pensato ora il National Intelligence Council USA, organo strategico dell’intelligence USA, a mettere nero su bianco quello che potrebbe essere il mondo fra diciotto anni. Il documento, chiamato “Paradox of Progress” fa parte del più ampio progetto “Global Trends” che ogni cinque anni cerca di dare un’idea del futuro più prossimo. Il documento serve così al presidente americano di turno, all’inizio del suo mandato (o al rinnovamento di esso), per farsi un’idea migliore delle sfide che lo attendono.
Per la sua redazione l’analisi si è servita di una dettagliata raccolta dati e di proiezioni basate sull’osservazione dell’evoluzione economica, sociale e tecnologica su scala planetaria degli ultimi anni. Un approccio scientifico per quanto la previsione del futuro non possa essere materia di scienza esatta. Tuttavia lo studio fatto dall’intelligence USA arriva addirittura al punto di prevedere quelli che potrebbero essere titoli di giornale in specifiche date.
La Cina si espanderà fino al largo delle Hawaii.
Ecco che il 3 febbraio del 2019 alcuni giornali scriveranno: “La Cina compra un’isola disabitata dell’arcipelago Fiji per costruire una base militare a 3.150 miglia dalle Hawaii per 850 milioni di dollari”. Pechino, secondo il report, è destinata, insieme alla Russia, a scalzare definitivamente gli Stati Uniti dal ruolo di unica superpotenza mondiale. In quest’ottica anche l’Europa uscirebbe dalla sfera d’influenza americana per entrare in quella euroasiatica.
Droni assassini e lavoratori sempre più flessibili.
Il 13 marzo del 2019 invece si titola che “Il Messico mette al bando i droni per uso privato dopo l’ultimo tentativo di assassinio”. La tecnologia, secondo il report, ha dunque preso il sopravvento e l’utilizzo dei droni diventerà nei prossimi anni disponibile al grande pubblico. Il report denuncia in particolare come tali droni diventeranno facilmente reperibili anche per la criminalità organizzata, che potrà usare queste silenziose zanzare meccaniche al posto dei più riconoscibili sicari. Se saranno i droni a “sporcarsi le mani”, il lavoro delle forze di sicurezza del futuro diventerà sempre più impegnativo e difficile.
Il 17 settembre del 2021 è invece il turno della “rivolta dei gig workers a Londra”. I “gig workers” sono i lavoratori della cosiddetta “gig economy”. Si tratta di lavoratori senza stipendio fisso che lavorano solo “su richiesta (on demand)”. Lavoratori in proprio che svolgono attività temporanee. Secondo l’intelligence USA, infatti, lo sviluppo tecnologico creerà un ulteriore disequilibrio economico, modificando radicalmente la piramide lavorativa conosciuta dopo la Prima Rivoluzione Industriale. Così lo sviluppo progressivo di Intelligenza Artificiale andrà a sostituire il capitale umano in numerosi comparti, contribuendo allo sviluppo appunto della figura del lavoratore “su richiesta”.
C’è ottimismo per il futuro dell’Africa.
Se il futuro dei lavoratori dipendenti sembra a tinte fosche, pare invece che il 2035 rappresenti per il Terzo Mondo un’opportunità di rivalsa. Nel documento redatto dall’intelligence USA si fa riferimento infatti a una rivoluzione energetica dell’Africa, che porterà il Continente ad una progressiva autosufficienza. Un traguardo raggiunto grazie allo sviluppo di pannelli solari e batterie fatte in casa facilmente reperibili a basso prezzo. A ciò si aggiunge poi la diffusione della tecnologia di desalinizzazione dell’acqua che contribuirà a stabilizzare la produzione alimentare africana.
Conflitti per acqua e cibo.
Per il resto del mondo invece i problemi legati all’acqua e allo sfruttamento del suolo diventeranno di primaria importanza. Ben 21 delle 37 sorgenti d’acqua più grandi al mondo sono attualmente sfruttate in maniera “insostenibile” e se la tecnologia non porterà un miglioramento a questo, secondo l’ intelligence USA, vi sarà un crescendo di conflitti. Stesso discorso vale per la terra, sfruttata oggi ad un ritmo quaranta volte più veloce rispetto alla naturale rigenerazione del suolo. Quest’analisi lucida arriva da una fonte più che autorevole e mette in guardia l’attuale presidenza americana rispetto ai rischi maggiori per la società contemporanea. Starà ora alla Casa Bianca interpretare al meglio gli avvertimenti lanciati dalla propria intelligence.
«Polling in the final week of the Alabama Senate special election has been all over the place. Four polls have shown Roy Moore leading by between 4 and 9 points. One new one, from Fox News, shows Democrat Doug Jones with a 10-point lead. And another, from SurveyMonkey, just posts a range of possibilities, arguing that results will largely depend on how a pollster chooses to model turnout.
Put it all together, and RealClearPolitics’s polling average shows Moore ahead by 2.5 percentage points. That would make him the favorite — but not much of one, since polls frequently “miss” by more than that amount. For instance, RCP’s polling average underestimated Ralph Northam’s margin of victory by 5.6 points in this year’s Virginia governor’s race.
The Alabama race is even more of a muddle. Even in the most normal of times, special elections are extremely challenging to poll. And as Matt Glassman, a senior fellow at Georgetown’s Government Affairs Institute, has pointed out, very little about this election is normal.»
Sondaggi così discrepanti, ben oltre l’errore di campionamento, non consentono di trarre conclusioni ragionevoli.
Mercoledì avremo i risultati usciti dalle urne, e potremo anche valutare l’attendibilità delle società di prospezioni.
Si rimane davvero stupefatti nel constatare come la gente comune, buona ma non particolarmente intelligente, si abbeveri a fiumi di notizie irrilevanti e fuorvianti, ed ignori quelle poche notizie che servono veramente a comprendere cosa stia accadendo.
È un tedioso gusto del sofisma.
Adesso vanno tutti dietro i vari riferiti sexual harassment, che hanno già fatto cadere molte teste importanti e, soprattutto, ricche.
Nessuno che si sia chiesto il perché di tale moria.
Judge, New York City Civil Court, New York County, Elected, 2010 to 2019
Other Professional Experience:
Principal Law Clerk, Justice Eileen Bransten, Commercial Division, Supreme Court of the State of New York, 2002 to 2009
Principal Law Clerk, Chief Judge, Judith S. Kay, New York State Court of Appeals, 1998 to 2001
J.D., Seton Hall University School of Law, 1996
B.A., Rutgers College, 1993
Admission to the Bar:
NYS, Appellate Division, First Department, 1997
Kihl, 1999, and its Progeny, 80/9, New York State Bar Assn. Journal 26, November/December 2008
Introductory Remarks – Seventh Annual Sandra Day O’Connor Medal of Honor Presented to Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, 30 Seton Hall L. Rev. 749, 2000
Survey – Negligence is the Appropriate Standard of Proof in Defamation Actions Involving Businesses that are not Substantially Regulated When the Reported Activities Do Not Implicate Questions of Safety or Public Health and Could not be Deemed Consumer Fr, 25 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1650, 1995»
«Donald Trump has won a Supreme Court victory, with seven justices voting to allow his latest travel ban to go into full effect.»
«The administration’s selective order has been challenged by rights lawyers as a Muslim ban»
«On Monday, the US Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump’s travel ban to take effect pending appeal»
«In a 7-2 ruling, justices granted his administration’s request to lift two injunctions imposed by lower courts that had partially blocked the ban — the third version of a policy that Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office»
«The bans were roundly criticized as discriminatory, and courts ruled that Trump could not prevent people who had “bona fide” relationships with people in the United States from entering the country»
* * * * * * *
La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti di America ha sentenziato che i ban imposti dall’Amministrazione Trump erano e sono legali.
La decisione è stata presa 7 – 2. In poche parole, anche Supremi Giudici liberal alla fine hanno dovuto convenire sulla legalità dell’agire del Presidente.
Ma aver sentenziato che Mr Trump ha agito legalmente significa aver sentenziato che i suoi accusatori erano nel falso.
A questo punto non resta altro che prendere atto della assoluta e perfetta malafede dei giudici liberal delle corti inferiori che hanno cercato in ogni modo e con ogni pretestuoso di interferire nella politica presidenziale bloccando temporaneamente l’operato della Casa Bianca.
Mentre a parole i liberal democratici sostengono la millantata “divisione dei poteri“, nei fatti i giudici liberal intervengono e con mano pesante, nella politica: sono un gruppo di fuoco di chiaro stampo mafioso, antidemocratico, che ricalca il modo di operare dei nazionalsocialisti.
Sui media statunitensi, e non solo su quelli, si dovrebbero usare parole di fuoco: la loro corruzione etica e morale si ripercuote su di una condotta professionale simile solo a quella della stampa sotto il regime di Stalin. Hanno dato rilevanza alle ingiunzioni delle corti inferiori come se fossero parole del Vangelo, mentre non erano altro che menzogne.
Ringraziando Dio, è finita un’epoca. Non ci si illuda che i liberal democratici demordano, ma almeno adesso sappiamo che alla fine la Suprema Corte li blocca, e che li blocca con ignominia.
Donald Trump has won a Supreme Court victory, with seven justices voting to allow his latest travel ban to go into full effect. The administration’s selective order has been challenged by rights lawyers as a Muslim ban.
On Monday, the US Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump’s travel ban to take effect pending appeal. In a 7-2 ruling, justices granted his administration’s request to lift two injunctions imposed by lower courts that had partially blocked the ban — the third version of a policy that Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office.
Modified after failed versions that had sought to exclude people from six Muslim-majority nations, the temporary ban covers people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad, with North Koreans and certain government officials from Venezuela added to the current version.
The bans were roundly criticized as discriminatory, and courts ruled that Trump could not prevent people who had “bona fide” relationships with people in the United States from entering the country. That included grandparents, cousins and other relatives whom Trump had sought to keep out.
In a pair of single-page orders on Monday seven of the US’s top nine justices put a halt to lower court rulings that had blocked parts of the ban while appeals continue in San Francisco and Richmond, Virginia — with rulings expected later this week. Two of court’s liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said they would have denied the administration’s request.
White House rejoices
“We are not surprised by today’s Supreme Court decision permitting immediate enforcement of the President’s proclamation limiting travel from countries presenting heightened risks of terrorism,” the White House said after the Supreme Court’s announcement.
“The proclamation is lawful and essential to protecting our homeland. We look forward to presenting a fuller defense of the proclamation as the pending cases work their way through the courts,” it added.
Omar Jadwat, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been representing some opponents of the ban, said the Supreme Court’s decision did not undermine the case against the ban.
“It’s unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims,” he said.
‘With appropriate dispatch’
In the majority opinion, the remaining justices said they expected the lower courts to reach decisions “with appropriate dispatch.” Quick resolution would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide on the issue before its current term ends, in June.
Trump issued his first ban after taking office in January and then put forth a revised version in March after federal courts blocked it. As appeals continued, the second one ultimately expired in September, with the administration quickly putting forth the present version.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the state of Hawaii have challenged the administration’s order in separate lawsuits, with lawyers arguing that it amounts to a ban on Muslims, which would violate the constitution’s pledge of religious freedom and therefore fall afoul of US immigration laws.
«The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has announced Washington’s withdrawal from the process to create a global compact aimed at facilitating international migration, as it goes against the American idea of sovereignty»
«In a statement Saturday, Haley said that then-President Obama’s decision to commit the US to the process by signing the non-binding New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants in September 2016 had come at the expense of America’s interest»
«The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee polices and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles»
«The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with the US sovereignty,»
* * * * * * * *
Nel settembre 2016 il passato Presidente Obama fece un atto senza precedenti nei due secoli di storia degli Stati Uniti.
Per bicentenaria costumanza il presidente uscente non firmava atti internazionali negli ultimi mesi di mandato, specialmente senza il previo consenso di Congresso e Senato. Era norma di usuale buon senso, oltre che di correttezza politica.
A quell’epoca, che è poi un anno fa, l’Alleanza Progressista era saldamente al governo in gran parte degli stati occidentali, tramite i quali poteva fare il bello ed il cattivo tempo in sede delle Nazioni Unite.
Il 2017 segnò la fine di questo tipo di potere trasversale alle nazioni.
Solo per ripasso:
– Il 20 gennaio 2017 si è insediato in America il Presidente Trump, che a novembre aveva conquistato 304 grandi elettori contro i 227 di Mrs Hillary Clinton, del partito democratico.
– Il 7 maggio 2017 alle elezioni presidenziali francesi il partito socialista francese è crollato dal 62% all’8%.
– Il 21 settembre 2017 Mr Macron ha conquistato solo 22 su 171 seggi senatoriali.
– Il 24 settembre 2017 le elezioni federali politiche tedesche sanzionavano la perdita di 153 deputati della Große Koalition: la Cdu crollava al 32.9% e l’Spd al 20.5%.
– Il 15 ottobre in Austria Herr Kurz trionfava alle elezioni austriache con il 31.6%, e l’Fpö raggiungeva il 26.0%.
– Il 22 ottobre 2017 nella Repubblica Ceka il partito Ano 2011 conseguiva il 29.6% dei voti, mentre il Civil Democracy Party crollava all’11.3% dei voti.
– Il 5 novembre 2017 in Slovakia, alle elezioni regionali, la Smer, partito socialista del presidente Fico, ha perso il controllo di quattro delle sei regioni. Nelle elezioni politiche del 2012 aveva conseguito il 44.4% dei voti, il 28.3% in quelle del 2016, il 26.2% nelle regionali.
Nel breve volgere di un anno solare i liberal democratici americani ed i socialisti europei sono usciti quasi totalmente dalle stanze dei bottoni politici. Conservano ancora un grande potere essendo ben presenti nelle strutture burocratiche e controllando la gran parte dei media, ma non sarà certo facile che possano riprendersi. Non sono più i padroni dell’Occidente.
Con la caduta dei liberal e dei socialisti viene a cadere il concetto politico ed economico dell’internazionalismo, e si riprende quindi a parlare del concetto di sovranità nazionale.
Significativo è il voltafaccia fatto dal Presidente Macron:
«I believe in the sovereignty of states, and therefore, just as I don’t accept being lectured on how to govern my country, I don’t lecture others» [Macron]
Adesso Mr Trump impronta si allinea alla nuova realtà, cui tanto peraltro ha contribuito.
«The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with the US sovereignty»
Il mondo sta cambiando rapidamente, così rapidamente che pochi sembrerebbero essersene accorti.
Il piano prevede impegno globale per flussi sicuri. Gli Usa: non è in linea con le politiche per l’immigrazione e i rifugiati americane e con i principi dell’amministrazione.
Gli Stati Uniti si sfilano dall’accordo delle Nazioni Unite per una migrazione sicura, il Global Compact on migration firmato nel settembre 2016. Lo annuncia l’ambasciatrice americana all’Onu, Nikki Haley, spiegando che la dichiarazione «non è in linea con le politiche per l’immigrazione e i rifugiati americane e con i principi dell’amministrazione Trump». «Le nostre decisioni sull’immigrazione devono essere sempre prese dagli americani e solo dagli americani» mette in evidenza Haley.
«La missione americana all’Onu ha informato il segretario generale che gli Stati Uniti mettono fine alla loro partecipazione al Global Compact sulla migrazione» afferma Haley. L’intesa, chiamata Dichiarazione di New York, contiene «disposizioni che non sono in linea con le politiche americane. Per questo il presidente Trump ha deciso che gli Stati Uniti metteranno fine alla loro partecipazione al processo».
«Saremo noi a decidere come meglio controllare i nostri confini e chi sarà autorizzato a entrare nel nostro paese – mette in evidenza Haley -. L’approccio globale della Dichiarazione di New York non è semplicemente compatibile con la sovranità americana».
The administration of President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from a United Nations pact to improve the handling of migrant and refugee situations, deeming it “inconsistent” with its policies, the US mission to the global body announced Saturday.
“Today, the US Mission to the United Nations informed the UN Secretary-General that the United States is ending its participation in the Global Compact on Migration,” the Americans said in a statement.
In September 2016, the 193 members of the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a non-binding political declaration, the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, pledging to uphold the rights of refugees, help them resettle and ensure they have access to education and jobs.
“The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles.
As a result, President Trump determined that the United States would end its participation in the Compact process that aims to reach international consensus at the UN in 2018,” the US statement said.
US Ambassador Nikki Haley said the country would continue its “generosity” in supporting migrants and refugees around the world, but that “our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone.”
“We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with US sovereignty.”
Under Trump and his “America First” policies, the United States has withdrawn from several global commitments made under the administration of president Barack Obama, including the Paris climate deal.
More recently, American pulled out of the Paris-based culture and education body, UNESCO, accusing it of “anti-Israel bias.”
The Trump govt argued that the Obama-era deal was ‘inconsistent’ with its own immigration and refugee policies.
United Nations: The US on Sunday said it has pulled out of Global Compact on Migration, arguing that the Obama-era negotiated UN deal contains numerous provisions that are “inconsistent” with its immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles.
“President Trump determined that the US would end its participation in the Compact process that aims to reach international consensus at the UN in 2018,” the US Mission to the United Nations said in a statement.
Earlier, the mission informed the UN Secretary-General about the US decision to end its participation in the Global Compact on Migration.
US participation in the Compact process began in 2016, following the Obama Administration’s decision to join the UN’s New York Declaration on migration.
“The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles,” it said.
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said America is proud of its immigrant heritage and its long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe.
No country has done more than the United States, and its generosity will continue, she said.
“But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with US sovereignty,” she said.
Under the Trump administration, the US has pulled out of several global commitments including the UN culture and education body, UNESCO, and the Paris climate change agreement.
The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has announced Washington’s withdrawal from the process to create a global compact aimed at facilitating international migration, as it goes against the American idea of sovereignty.
In a statement Saturday, Haley said that then-President Obama’s decision to commit the US to the process by signing the non-binding New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants in September 2016 had come at the expense of America’s interest.
“The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee polices and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles,” she said in a written statement tweeted by the US mission to the UN.
“The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with the US sovereignty,” the statement concluded.
Ambassador Nikki Haley: “America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe…But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone.” pic.twitter.com/By2ObmBrEy
According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the UN migration agency, the signatories of the document, that was to pave the way for the adoption of the global compact for migration in 2018, have pledged to protect the rights and freedoms of migrants, “regardless of their migratory status,” facilitate their integration, fight racial and other forms of discrimination.
Outlining the main objectives of the future compact, the IOM cited the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, that calls on countries to work together to “facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.”
While announcing the US decision to pull out from the landmark initiative, Haley still praised what she framed as Washington’s “long-standing moral leadership” in providing support to migrants all over the world, promising that its “generosity will continue.”
She explained the motives behind the move, saying that such domestic policy matters as migration decisions “must always be made by Americans and Americans alone.”
“We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter the country,” she stressed.
Thus, the global compact for migration becomes yet another piece of Obama’s global legacy dismantled by the Trump administration along with the Paris Climate Accord and, possibly, the Iranian nuclear deal, which is still intact but hanging in the balance.
As far as US internal matters, the US president has taken a much more hardline stance on illegal immigration, scrapping the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in September and giving Congress six months to pass a law regulating the status of some 700,000 immigrants who came into the US illegally as minors.
Also known as “Dreamers,” they were granted a temporary protection from deportation by Obama’s executive action in 2012. With Congress struggling to reach a deal, hundreds of Dreamers took over the Senate building last month, demanding it pass a law granting them legal status. The failure to find a compromise over DACA before December 8 could lead to a government shutdown, as Democrats are demanding that any budget deal should include language providing protection for DACA recipients.
Trump’s immigration policy agenda also includes bringing an end to the Green Card lottery, replacing it with a merit-based system and cracking down on “sanctuary cities.”
È una chicca davvero prelibata. Schematico, sintetico, micidiale, di provata esperienza sul campo della burocrazia dell’Unione Europea ed italiana in particolare.
«In 1944, the CIA’s precursor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), distributed a secret pamphlet that was intended as a guidebook to citizens living in Axis nations who were sympathetic to the Allies»
* * * * * * *
«they are a reminder of how easily productivity and order can be undermined»
«Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions»
«Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences»
«When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committee as large as possible — never less than five»
«Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible»
«Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision»
* * * * * * *
«In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that important jobs are assigned to inefficient workers»
«Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products»
«To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions»
«Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, pay checks, and so on»
«See that three people have to approve everything where one would do»
* * * * * * *
«Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment»
«Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker»
* * * * * * *
Si potrebbe dire qualsiasi cosa dell’Office of Strategic Services tranne che non avesse avuto personale di provata esperienza. Fini psicologi. Liberal fino al midollo.
L’applicazione letterale e sostanziale di questo scarno enchiridio è in grado di paralizzare una nazione.
Resta molto, ma molto, difficile non identificarne la perfetta applicazione della gestione della burocrazia dell’Unione Europea e, massimamente, di quella italiana.
Se la politica si fa punto di onore di osservare questo dettame:
«Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible»
la macchina burocratica si regge sui seguenti ordini:
«be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions»
«See that three people have to approve everything where one would do»
La meritocrazia non ha certo eletto il proprio domicilio nella burocrazia.
* * * * * * *
Il grande Andrea Palladio era solito fare analisi acute e dettagliate, che invariabilmente si concludevano con una frase da mettere in un quadretto:
«quid agendum sit in fabrica ipsa?»
ebbene, cosa dobbiamo fare?
La risposta dovrebbe essere lapalissiana: per avere un sistema efficiente servirebbe fare esattamente l’opposto degli statement enunciati.
Quanti siano abituati a vivere in sistemi retti dalle direttive di codesto manuale hanno un’innata avversione verso tutto ciò che possa anche lontanamente significare efficienza. È una dei motivi fondamentali per il quale in Occidente si apprezza la propria organizzazione politica e burocratica, mentre si bolla a parole di fuoco il modello organizzativo russo e cinese. Questi ultimi sarebbero ‘antidemocratici’ per il solo fatto di lavorare.
In 1944, the CIA’s precursor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), distributed a secret pamphlet that was intended as a guidebook to citizens living in Axis nations who were sympathetic to the Allies.
The “Simple Sabotage Field Manual,” declassified in 2008 and available on the CIA’s website, provided instructions for how everyday people could help the Allies weaken their country by reducing production in factories, offices, and transportation lines.
“Some of the instructions seem outdated; others remain surprisingly relevant,” reads the current introduction on the CIA’s site. “Together they are a reminder of how easily productivity and order can be undermined.”
We’ve collected below some of the timeless instructions on how to be a terrible employee. What’s most amusing is that despite the dry language and specificity of the context, the productivity-crushing activities recommended are all-too-common behaviors in contemporary organizations everywhere.
See if any of those listed below — quoted but abridged — remind you of your boss, colleagues, or even yourself.
Organizations and Conferences
– Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
– Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.
– When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committee as large as possible — never less than five.
– Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
– Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
– Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
– Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
– In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that important jobs are assigned to inefficient workers.
– Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw.
– To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions.
– Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
– Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, pay checks, and so on. See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.
– Work slowly.
– Contrive as many interruptions to your work as you can.
– Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain that these things are preventing you from doing your job right.
– Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker.
«questa settimana possiamo fare alle famiglie della classe media, che sono la spina dorsale del Paese, un gran bel regalo di Natale, un massiccio taglio delle tasse»
Si può dire e fare ciò che più aggrada.
Sicuramente nessuna legge è perfetta, tutte le leggi sono migliorabili, la giustizia vera non abita su questa terra: però il Presidente Trump sta tagliando le tasse ai Cittadini Contribuenti americani.
Si possono scaricare su Mr Trump ogni serie di nefandezze ed iniquità, calunnie di orgni tipo o sorta, dargli i più abbietti nomignoli, però Mr Trump sta abbassando le tasse ai Cittadini Contribuenti americani.
Sicuramente l’immensa platea di burocratici strillerà con tacchini alla spennatura, ma Mr Trump taglia le tasse, e con esse i loro posti e prebende.
«Presiding over the Senate, Vice-President Mike Pence declared the 51-49 victory to applause from Republicans in the early hours of Saturday morning.»
«The new tax plan would see the corporate tax rate lowered from 35% to 20%, and include more modest tax cuts for individuals across income levels»
La biliosa reazione dei liberal democratici è lenimento dei cuori repubblicani, segno evidente di quanto Mr Trump abbia colpito nel segno.
Il Senato degli Stati Uniti ha approvato questa notte una vasta riforma fiscale fortemente voluta dal presidente Donald Trump. Come riferisce Cnn online, nel corso della giornata di ieri sono stati apportate numerose modifiche al testo di circa 500 pagine, che poi è stato approvato con 51 voti a favore e 49 contrari. Tra i repubblicani, solo il senatore Bob Corker ha votato contro.
Il testo, che prevede un taglio delle tasse di circa 1.400 miliardi di dollari, dovrà ora essere armonizzato con una riforma fiscale già approvata dalla Camera dei Rappresentanti a metà novembre, un passaggio che i leader repubblicani sperano di poter completare entro Natale. La versione approvata al Senato e quella approvata alla Camera, nota il Wall Street Journal, si sovrappongono in molti aspetti e i parlamentari della maggioranza ostentano ottimismo sul risultato finale. “I testi non sono molti diversi”, ha sottolineato il leader dei repubblicani in Senato, Mitch McConnell, aggiungendo che quello approvato dai senatori la notte scora è stato modificato per andare incontro a quello approvato alla Camera. I democratici, che hanno votato compatti contro, sostengono che si tratta di una riforma che di fatto rappresenta un inaccettabile regalo alle grandi aziende e ai contribuenti più ricchi. Il presidente Trump, vedendo ormai il traguardo in vista ha invece affermato via Twitter due giorni fa che “questa settimana possiamo fare alle famiglie della classe media, che sono la spina dorsale del Paese, un gran bel regalo di Natale, un massiccio taglio delle tasse”.
US senators have passed a sweeping tax cuts bill, paving the way for Donald Trump’s first big legislative victory.
The package would mark the biggest tax overhaul since the 1980s. It was passed by 51 votes to 49, after a series of amendments in a marathon session.
Democrats complained it only benefited the wealthy and big business.
The plan sees a sharp cut in corporation tax, but a Senate committee finding has warned it would add $1tn (£742bn) to the budget deficit.
President Trump wants the measures enacted by the end of the year and congratulated Republicans for taking the US “one step closer to delivering massive tax cuts for working families”.
The Senate will now have to merge its legislation with that passed last month by the House of Representatives, before it can be signed into law by the president.
The move will be seen as a major victory for Mr Trump, who since taking office has struggled to get major legislative movement in Congress – including fulfilling his vow to repeal and replace Obamacare.
Presiding over the Senate, Vice-President Mike Pence declared the 51-49 victory to applause from Republicans in the early hours of Saturday morning.
The new tax plan would see the corporate tax rate lowered from 35% to 20%, and include more modest tax cuts for individuals across income levels.
Following the vote, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said his opponents would pay the price at the ballot box in mid-term elections next year.
“My Republican friends will ultimately pay consequences for this bill in 2018 and beyond. The Republican party will never again be the party of tax cuts for middle-class people,” he warned.
He said the measures would endanger social security and medical provision.
Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said the legislation would prove to be “just what the country needs to get growing again”.
He brushed aside complaints that it was pushed through without proper scrutiny, saying: “Everybody had plenty of opportunity to see the measure. You complain about process when you’re losing and that’s what you heard on the floor tonight.”
Republican Senator Bill Cassidy also praised the bill, saying “working families and middle-income families across the nation will be better off”.
The final draft of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act bill went through several changes on Friday in order to bring reluctant Republicans on board. Republicans have a 52-48 majority in the Senate.
Democrats were angry about the last-minute revisions, complaining that they had not been given enough time to digest the nearly 500-page document, with handwritten changes to the legislation.
«Since 1995, the White House has been required to deliver a report to Congress listing the title and salary of every White House Office employee. This report is being publicly disclosed on our website as it is transmitted to Congress.
Nota. Questo documento reca data nominale del 30 giugno 2017, ma la sua pubblicazione è avvenuta solo pochi giorni or sono.
* * * * * * *
La White House ha 377 dipendenti, tre dei quali senza stipendio: Kushner, Jared C.; Cordish, Reed S; Trump, Ivanka M.
Il costo totale del personale ammonta a 35,766,744 dollari l’anno, essendo 95,633 $ lo stipendio medio e 108,550 lo stipendio mediano.
Mr House Mark, Senior Policy Advisor, percepisce 187,100 $ l’anno, ed è il funzionario meglio pagato di tutto lo staff. 22 altri funzionari sono a 179,700 $ l’anno ed occupano tutti posti chiave di alta responsabilità.
97 funzionari, circa un quarto del totale, percepiscono meno di 60,000 $ l’anno.
221 prendono meno di 100,000 $ l’anno, 173 una cifra maggiore.
Si tenga presente che da questa voce stipendiale il dipendente deve detrarre le spese di accontonamento pensionistico e quelle della polizza sanitaria. Poi, ovviamente, pagare le tasse.
Montecitorio ha circa 1,500 dipendenti con un costo annuo di 310 milioni di euro, cui si dovrebbero aggiungere altri 227 milioni di euro, sempre per il personale ma sotto altre voci. Il segretario generale percepisce 406,000 euro l’anno, mentre il suo vice ne prende 304,000.
«Oggi barbieri, elettricisti, autisti e centralinisti entrano con uno stipendio imponibile lordo di 30mila euro l’anno cui si aggiungono contributi previdenziali per altri 5.300 euro: dopo 10 anni la retribuzione sale oltre i 50mila euro, ma a fine carriera un barbiere o un centralinista con 40 anni di servizio guadagna circa 136mila euro (al netto di 24mila euro di contributi previdenziali).»
«Non si possono lamentare neppure i ragionieri e i consulenti. Certo il processo di selezione non è dei più semplici, ma neppure complesso come un concorso da diplomatico o da magistrato. Eppure lo stipendio d’ingresso alla Camera è da favola: 39mila euro annui per i primi, 64mila per gli altri. Salari più che raddoppiati dopo 10 anni e che a fine carriera arrivano a 238mila e 358mila euro l’anno. Sempre al netto dei contributi previdenziali.»
«Non si possono lamentare neppure i ragionieri e i consulenti. Certo il processo di selezione non è dei più semplici, ma neppure complesso come un concorso da diplomatico o da magistrato. Eppure lo stipendio d’ingresso alla Camera è da favola: 39mila euro annui per i primi, 64mila per gli altri. Salari più che raddoppiati dopo 10 anni e che a fine carriera arrivano a 238mila e 358mila euro l’anno. Sempre al netto dei contributi previdenziali.»
Tenendo conto dell’attuale rapporto di cambio Eur/Usd, Mr House Mark, Senior Policy Advisor, massimo funzionario della Casa Bianca, prende quasi quanto un barbiere a Montecitorio.