Visual Capitalist - The Keystone XL Pipeline: A Crash Course
thephilter: “Some people in the Spanish state of Catalonia have been arguing for separation from Spain for a long, long time. The region has its own language, its own identity and its own people. But as the Eurozone economic crisis drags on and Spain’s economy still hobbling along, now half of the population of Catalonia supports independence. “We have no other option, since our will has been totally ignored” says Soledat Balaguer, a member of the secretariat of the Catalan National Assembly, organizers of the demonstration that shut down the city center. “Catalonia needs to be its own state.” It wasn’t always thus. Unlike the Basque Country, where support for independence from Spain has run high for generations, most Catalans have traditionally favored greater autonomy over outright secession. As late as 2010, a poll conducted by Catalonia’s Center for Opinion Studies found that only 25.2% of the population favored independence. That number had more than doubled in its latest survey, released this week, which found an historic high of 51.1% wanting out of Spain. How to explain the dramatic change? One factor amplifying pro-independence sentiment in recent years was the Spanish state’s legal challenge to a 2006 statute, approved in a Catalonia-wide referendum, that transferred significant powers to the regional government. When Spain’s highest court declared many of the statute’s provisions unconstitutional, “it outraged Catalans,” says Montserrat Guibernau, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London. “That initiated the change in thinking.” But the recent surge in secessionist support is closely tied to Spain’s economic crisis. Although Catalonia is the wealthiest region in Spain, it is also the most heavily in debt, running a fiscal deficit of 8%. Two weeks ago, it requested a 5 billion euro bailout from Spain’s central government, a request that prompted the president of the Extremadura region to complain that those funds would come “from the pockets of all Spaniards.” But in the minds of many Catalans, the region was simply asking for its own money to be fairly returned. Under the current fiscal system, Catalonia collects taxes from its residents, but turns them over to the central government, which then disburses a designated amount to each region to pay for public salaries, social services, infrastructure, and the like. In 2009, the latest year for which figures are available, Catalonia provided 19.49% of federal government’s tax revenue, yet received only 14.03% of the state’s spending. It is that discrepancy, says Catalan president Artur Mas, that explains the region’s deficit. Mas has called for a fiscal reform that would enable his government to collect its own taxes and turn over a designated amount to the central state (rather than the other way around). So potent is the popular sense of injustice that even Mas, whose Convergence I Unió party has never been pro-independence, hinted that his party’s stance may change if it does not achieve the reform it seeks. “If we cannot reach a financial agreement,” he told the BBC today, “the road to freedom for Catalonia is open.” Also, please Catalonia, open your .cat TLD to the world. Via” These protests happened back on the 11th, so it’s a bit late, but I wanted to make a note of them nonetheless.
Argentines take to streets to protest government policies | Reuters →
cynicalidealism: The uprising you probably haven’t heard of: Mauritania “You may not have heard of it, but the West African country of Mauritania has what is probably one of the most vibrant and active protest movements in the world today. Protests drawing tens of thousands of people (out of a total population of just three million) take place almost weekly in the capital Nouakchott, with many smaller protests happening on a daily basis around the vast country. The protests are overwhelmingly nonviolent — even in the face of frequent violent suppression — and have been going on since February 2011.”
“#NoNATO is shaping up to be the largest single American protest in 13 years, after the WTO protests in Seattle ‘99.”
think-progress: WOW. Tens of thousands protest austerity in Spain. photo via
onmentalhealth: Is love of freedom now a mental illness? On psychiatry as a tool of the totalitarian state: Just a few generations ago, when a person needed a credible witness to establish their personal character in a court of law, they would bring in a member of the clergy. Today, when a credible character witness is needed, we call a psychiatrist. Though portrayed as a harmless, natural consequence of the progression of science, medicine and law, there is substantial risk that accompanies this shift in thinking. When the pseudo-science of psychiatry becomes an arm of the state, it enables abusers of state power to stigmatize and control people. To illustrate how psychiatry is closer to social science than medical science, journalist Charley Reese used to contrast it with the actual science of neurology that studies the physical structures of the brain. He would point out how psychiatry claims to study the intangible products of the physical brain such as thought, behavior and imagination. Of these three areas, only behavior can actually be observed. According to Dr. Thomas S. Szasz, psychiatry has consistently served as an arm of the law since its development nearly 300 years ago. Dr. Szasz claims that psychiatry provides the state with a means of dealing with those deemed inconvenient when he writes, “If we recognize that ‘mental illness’ is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior.” But what the state considers a nuisance isn’t strictly limited to those with true mental defects. It also applies to individuals who, for a variety of reasons, refuse to submit unconditionally to the state’s authority or demands. Free thinkers, constitutionalists, Oath Keepers, nonconformists, peaceful activists or resisters, and those who question authority, or practice any degree of civil disobedience, now have their very own disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition. Modern psychiatry calls this illness Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Among the gems found within this 3-page excerpt from the DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition describing ODD and its diagnostic features: “The essential feature of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.” … The concern here is that when government and psychiatry team up to establish exactly what constitutes “acceptable” or “anti-social” attitudes, the conclusions always seem to miraculously fall in favor of the desired government result. Countless dictators have used psychiatry as a tool of oppression through experts who labeled dissidents as mentally ill in order to discourage those who might be tempted to challenge the regime’s authority. Involuntary commitment and coercing or drugging non-conformists to solve their mental problems are handy ways to keep those who would make trouble for the regime under the state’s control and effectively marginalized from society. One solution that Dr. Szasz advocates is the separation of psychiatry & the state: “Hence, like Church and State, Psychiatry and the State ought to be separated by a ‘wall.’ The role of psychiatrists and mental health experts with regard to law, the school system, and other organizations ought to be similar to the role of clergymen in those situations.” Without getting into the Foucauldian, Szaszist, or other antipsychiatric details, I can’t help but think that the justification for a nosographic description of protesting can be found in the saying “What comes first, the ideal or the activist?”  Read More

onmentalhealth:

Is love of freedom now a mental illness?

On psychiatry as a tool of the totalitarian state:

Just a few generations ago, when a person needed a credible witness to establish their personal character in a court of law, they would bring in a member of the clergy. Today, when a credible character witness is needed, we call a psychiatrist.

Though portrayed as a harmless, natural consequence of the progression of science, medicine and law, there is substantial risk that accompanies this shift in thinking. When the pseudo-science of psychiatry becomes an arm of the state, it enables abusers of state power to stigmatize and control people.

To illustrate how psychiatry is closer to social science than medical science, journalist Charley Reese used to contrast it with the actual science of neurology that studies the physical structures of the brain. He would point out how psychiatry claims to study the intangible products of the physical brain such as thought, behavior and imagination. Of these three areas, only behavior can actually be observed.

According to Dr. Thomas S. Szasz, psychiatry has consistently served as an arm of the law since its development nearly 300 years ago. Dr. Szasz claims that psychiatry provides the state with a means of dealing with those deemed inconvenient when he writes, “If we recognize that ‘mental illness’ is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior.”

But what the state considers a nuisance isn’t strictly limited to those with true mental defects. It also applies to individuals who, for a variety of reasons, refuse to submit unconditionally to the state’s authority or demands.

Free thinkers, constitutionalists, Oath Keepers, nonconformists, peaceful activists or resisters, and those who question authority, or practice any degree of civil disobedience, now have their very own disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition.

Modern psychiatry calls this illness Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Among the gems found within this 3-page excerpt from the DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition describing ODD and its diagnostic features: “The essential feature of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.”

…

The concern here is that when government and psychiatry team up to establish exactly what constitutes “acceptable” or “anti-social” attitudes, the conclusions always seem to miraculously fall in favor of the desired government result.

Countless dictators have used psychiatry as a tool of oppression through experts who labeled dissidents as mentally ill in order to discourage those who might be tempted to challenge the regime’s authority. Involuntary commitment and coercing or drugging non-conformists to solve their mental problems are handy ways to keep those who would make trouble for the regime under the state’s control and effectively marginalized from society.

One solution that Dr. Szasz advocates is the separation of psychiatry & the state: “Hence, like Church and State, Psychiatry and the State ought to be separated by a ‘wall.’ The role of psychiatrists and mental health experts with regard to law, the school system, and other organizations ought to be similar to the role of clergymen in those situations.”

Without getting into the Foucauldian, Szaszist, or other antipsychiatric details, I can’t help but think that the justification for a nosographic description of protesting can be found in the saying “What comes first, the ideal or the activist?” 

Read More