Hospital doctors announce decision to ignore the Ministry of Health directive and to continue treating undocumented migrants

Prior to the May 6th elections, the minister of health, Loverdos, announced undocumented migrants were to no longer receive any treatment in public hospitals in Greece. In response, hospital doctors issued, through their union body, the following statement

source in greek

Doctors: “We will treat undocumented migrants. No to Loverdos’ credentials to the [Nazis of the] Golden Dawn!”

The decision of the Minister of Health [at the time] Andreas Loverdos to ban the treatment of those who are illegally in the country, with the exception of emergencies, has caused havoc in the medical community.

Hospital doctors decided to ignore the order by Loverdos, accusing him in turn that with this order he tries to give his …credentials to the supporters of the [Nazi] Golden Dawn.

After the decision of their union (OENGE), doctors will continue to treat undocumented migrants as normal. In an issued statement, OENGE says: “hospital doctors declare, for an n-th time, to the impenitent minister of health, that they shall not renounce their medical profession and turn themselves to guards of humans instead, that they shall not concern themselves with the skin color, the gender, the origin and legalising documents of any human requiring examination and treatment”.

The head of the OENGE, Dimitris Varnavas, clarifies in some stark words: “If Mr Loverdos wishes to satisfy his political obsessions or give his credentials to the supporters of the Golden Dawn, he has the capacity do so in any ways -not, however, by exploiting the professional responsibility and dignity of hospital doctors.

We announce, therefore, that we shall completely ignore the recent, pre-electoral instructions by Mr. Loverdos and that we shall continue practicing the medical profession as commandeered by our oath and medical conduct”.

Medical Daily: Paralyzed Man Regains Hand Function after Breakthrough Nerve Rewiring Procedure

Paralyzed Man Regains Hand Function after Breakthrough Nerve Rewiring Procedure

A man who had been paralyzed from the waist down and had lost all function in both his hands can move his fingers after doctors rewired his nerves to bypass the damaged ones in a pioneering surgical procedure, according to a case study published on Tuesday.

The 71-year-old man, who had become paralyzed after he was injured in a car accident in 2008, still had limited arm, elbow and shoulder movement, but because the C7 vertebrae in his spinal cord had been crushed, the nerve circuits responsible for sending signals from the brain to the muscles in his hands were severed and all control was lost.

However, the nearby nerves had not been injured in the accident and surgeons were able to cut an undamaged nerve in the man’s elbow and connect it to the damaged nerve responsible for activating muscles in the hand responsible for grasping objects.

"The circuit [in the hand] is intact, but no longer connected to the brain,” Surgeon Ida Fox, an assistant professor of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Washington University, explained to the BBC. "What we do is take that circuit and restore the connection to the brain."

Surgeons explain that nerve transfer surgery is essentially borrowing a healthy and working nerve and transferring it into another nerve that has lost function.

Fox and colleagues had severed the nerve that controlled the man’s brachialis, an arm muscle that helps bend the elbow, and stitched it to the damaged nerve that controlled his hands.

"We had to sacrifice something that's 'sacrificable,'" Fox told ABC News, and explained that the biceps and other elbow-bending muscles would be able to work for the brachialis.

The surgery was meant to resurrect the connection between the brain and the hand so that the man could slowly regain hand function as the inserted nerve establishes new connections to the brain which will reprogram itself to move the fingers by activating the elbow nerve.

"The brain has to be trained to think, "OK, I used to bend my elbow with this nerve, and now I use it to pinch,'" said Fox, according to ABC News. "We're not changing any of the biomechanics; we're just changing the wiring. So it's more of a mental game that patients have to play with themselves."

After months of intensive physical therapy, surgeons reported that the man was able to feed himself and even write with some assistance, according to doctors writing in the Journal of Neurosurgery.

Video: Surgeons have restored some hand function in a quadriplegic patient

The doctors explain that patients with C7 and C6 vertebra injuries, like the man in the case study, while considered quadriplegic, can move their shoulders, elbows and wrists because those nerves are attached to the spinal cord just above the location of the injury, making the nerve transfer operation possible.

However, experts say that the same nerve transfer surgery would probably be unsuccessful in restoring hand and arm function for people who are injured higher up along the spinal cord from the C5 to C1 vertebra.

"This procedure is unusual for treating quadriplegia because we do not attempt to go back into the spinal cord where the injury is," Fox said in a statement. "Instead, we go out to where we know things work -- in this case the elbow -- so that we can borrow nerves there and reroute them to give hand function."

Surgeons said that the patient’s progress was encouraging because it showed that the people paralyzed because of nerve damage can still regain movement even after some time. The man had undergone the surgical procedure in 2010, two years after the car accident that paralyzed him.

Doctors say that as long as the muscle remains healthy and the damaged nerve- even though it can no longer send signals to the brain- remains connected to the support and nourishment of the spinal cord, function can be restored even years after the injury.

"This is not a particularly expensive or overly complex surgery," senior author Susan Mackinnon, who developed and performed the surgery, said in a statement. "It's not a hand or a face transplant, for example. It's something we would like other surgeons around the country to do."

in which three programming methods are compared

There are, roughly speaking, three ways to develop large user-facing programs, which we will refer to here as 0) the Unix way, 1) the Emacs way, and 2) the wrong way.

The Unix way has been expounded upon at length many times. It consists of many small programs which communicate by sending text over pipes or using the occasional signal. If you can get away with using this model, the simplicity and universality it offers is very compelling. You hook into a rich ecosystem of text-based processes with a long history of well-understood conventions. Anyone can tie into it with programs written in any language. But it's not well-suited for everything: sometimes the requirement of keeping each part of the system in its own process is too high a price to pay, and sometimes circumstances require a richer communication channel than just a stream of text.

This is where the Emacs way shines. A small core written in a low-level language implements a higher-level language in which most of the rest of the program is implemented. Not only does the higher-level language ease the development of the trickier parts of the program, but it also makes it much easier to implement a good extension system since extensions are placed on even ground with the original program itself. I wrote about this in an earlier post on the live-development model Emacs offers:

If you have to use some tacked-on "plugin mechanism" to customize it, then you’re going to be limited at the very least by the imagination of the author of the plugin mechanism; only the things he thought you would want to do with it are doable. But if you’re using the exact same tools as the original authors were using to write the program in the first place, you can bet they put all their effort into making that a seamless, powerful experience, and you'll be able to access things on an entirely new level.

-in which a subject is attempted to be approached objectively, though such a thing is actually impossible

It's worth noting that this is the model under which Mozilla is developed. The core Mozilla platform is implemented mostly in C++, but applications like Firefox and Thunderbird are primarily written in JavaScript, as are extensions. Following the Emacs way accounted for Firefox's continuing popularity even back when it was getting trounced by competitors in terms of JavaScript performance. Chrome's extension mechanism is laughably simplistic in comparison.

Finally for completeness sake, the wrong way is simply to write a large monolithic application in a low-level language, usually C++. Often half-hearted attempts at extension mechanisms are bolted on to programs developed this way, (usually in order to check off another box on a features list) but they are invariably frustrating and primitive and don't end up offering extension developers the same access to program internals that the developers of the original program itself have.

The Unix way makes particularly explicit the notion of composing small programs, but the Emacs way shines when a single runtime process plays host to a number of independent programs that can interact with each other gracefully. For instance, the Magit version control interface can run in the same Emacs instance as a SLIME session controlling a lisp project. They coexist in a complimentary way and compose together without interference. So rather than saying there are three ways to write large user-facing programs, it might be more accurate to say that there are zero good ways to write large user-facing programs and two ways to compose a number of small programs into a coherent system.

This is especially interesting to me right now since it has come to my attention that when it was rewritten in the transition from version 2 to version 3, GNOME has switched to the second way via an embedded JavaScript runtime, which means things are about to get very interesting.

Schack med Lenin

Åsa Linderborg: Schack med Lenin | Åsa Linderborg | Krönikörer | Kultur

Får man hata klassamhället? Får man hata sociala orättvisor?

Nej, svarar Dagens Nyheters litteraturkritiker Jens Liljestrand. Han har hört Johan Jönson läsa på Dramaten ur sin diktsamling med.bort.in. och känner att så här får det fan inte gå till.

Liljestrand har fördrag med Jönsons poesi så länge den vilar stilla mellan bokpärmarna. Det är när Jönson tar dikten i sin mun, får andra att lyssna till orden, och dessutom inhöstar stora applåder, som Liljestrand skriker stopp och belägg.

Vi lever i världens mest jämlika land, upplyser han oss. Visst finns det skillnader men knappast nån anledning till förbittring och konfrontation. Jönson kan ”stoppa upp sitt klasshat i röven”.

Så har bara den råd att resonera som befinner sig på den vinnande sidan i det svenska klassamhälle som snabbt och våldsamt vidgar sina klyftor. Den som tror att klassamhället dog med barnbidragets införande 1937.

Klasshatet har sina objektiva förklaringar, som Anders Johansson konstaterar.

Orättvisorna sitter i plånboken, i tänderna som inte kan lagas, i kroppen som värker, i maten man äter, i språket som inte räcker till, i makten man saknar och i självförtroendet som inte finns.

I skammen över att inte ha råd.

Är det nåt som Johan Jönson skildrar på djupet, så är det den fattiges självhat. Över att maktlösheten är så förlamande, att det enda man orkar göra är att fantisera om nåt så meningslöst som att trycka kuken mot handdukarna i Bromma. Efter arbetsschema (2008) präglas mer av hat mot än solidaritet med dem som är i samma hopplösa situation som diktjaget själv. Men Jens Liljestrand ser bara det hat som riktas mot de som när sig på underordningen.

Jag förstår den som låter skammen över fattigdomen och vreden över orättvisorna slå över i hat mot de privilegierade – mot höginkomsttagare som jag själv. Mer abstrakt än så är inte samhällsstrukturen.

Klasshatet riktar sig uppåt, mot dem som har makt. De privilegierades motsvarande känsla är folkförakt. Först när de underprivilegierade mobiliserar sig och blir upproriska, övergår föraktet i hat.

Klassföraktet har många ansikten. Det yttrar sig i allt från låg lönesättning och spefulla kommentarer över dem som åker finlandsfärja, till rättframma förslag om att demokratin måste inskränkas. När populasen i Europa hade mage att motsätta sig nedskärningarna, tyckte Björn Wahlroos, styrelseordförande i Nordea – där svenska staten är storägare – att demokratin gått för långt (Studio ett 18 april). Det krävs andra åtgärder, menade han. När den grekiska situationen nu i veckan tvingade fram ett nyval, uttryckte Sydsvenskans ledarskribent Niklas Eriksson samma tankegång (P1 Morgon 15 maj).

Det är sånt här – borgerlighetens rädsla för demokratin – som vi borde diskutera, men Jens Liljestrand viger hellre sin tid åt att jämställa Breiviks hat mot kulturmarxisterna med Johan Jönsons hat mot klassamhället (även om han medger att rashat är något värre än klasshat).

Jens Liljestrands artiklar publicerades i Dagens Nyheter den 28 april och 10 maj. De vittnar vältaligt om DN Kulturs nya hållning: Portalartiklarna, de som utgör kultursidans själva imperativ, riktar sig mot vänstern och dess påstådda makt över särskilt kulturen. Oavsett om man tycker kursändringen är bra eller dålig, är den tydlig för alla – utom för kulturchefen Björn Wiman. Han har inte flyttat DN Kultur en millimeter, menar han. Den som påstår nåt annat är en ”politisk kommissarie” (DN 13 maj).

Det är möjligt att Björn Wiman faktiskt inte ser positionsförskjutningen. Som liberal anser han sig definitionsmässigt stå i mitten och bara företräda det ”sunda förnuftet”. Jag tror dock mer om Wiman än så. Jag tror han förstår att publiceringen av Bengt Ohlssons illa underbyggda litania om vänstern och makten är långt viktigare än texten i sig.

Jag menar att Wiman brutit med den kulturradikala traditionen inom liberalismen (Aftonbladet 6 maj), men själv ser han sig tvärtom som kulturradikalismens fanbärare. Kulturradikalismen, skriver han självberömmande, ”misstror alla stora system, den ifrågasätter alla dogmer och stelnade strukturer”. Han sammanfattar: ”Det säger sig självt att bokstavstrogna marxister alltid haft problem med en sådan rörelse.”

När Wiman med ett penndrag skriver bort marxismen ur den kulturradikala traditionen är han originell nog att revidera hela den västerländska idéhistorien.

Marxismen har vindlat och utvecklats i mer än ett och ett halvt sekel. Det finns en massa olika marxismer, så vilka talar Björn Wiman om när han talar om de som är ”bokstavstroende”?

För Wiman är alla marxister bokstavstrogna. Det är en klassisk liberal hållning, att jämföra marxismen med en irrationell religion. Wiman väljer dock att endast namnge ett exempel: Lenin. Lenin var ”bokstavstroende marxist”, alltså var han inte kulturradikal.

Det finns en Lenin före och en efter revolutionen 1917. Han var modern i vissa frågor och gammalmodig i andra – precis som August Strindberg, som Wiman djärvt nog ställer upp som Lenins antites.

Det intressanta är emellertid inte Lenin, utan att hela den europeiska arbetarrörelsen under tiden för den ryska revolutionen var ett emancipatoriskt projekt med gemensamma referensramar till upplysningen och franska revolutionen. Målet var att förändra samhället på alla nivåer: socialt, politiskt och kulturellt.

Min poäng är att Lenin öppnade för en ny kultur, att han inledningsvis försökte skapa en dialog mellan alla radikala kretsar. Konstnärer, författare, skådespelare, pedagoger, arkitekter ... deltog i samtal om hur revolutionen skulle genomföras och förvaltas. Socialismen, förstod han, skulle aldrig lyckas utan kulturarbetarna.

Det gjorde den inte heller.

Den påbjudna, kvävande och till sin funktion antidemokratiskt maktförhärligande kulturkonservatismen – förgudningen av Lenin är bara ett exempel – slog fullt igenom med Stalin. När Partiet blev den nya machiavelliske Fursten, för att tala med den kulturradikale kommunisten Gramsci. Förklaringarna till den sovjetiska tragedin är flera, men knappast att Stalin hade förläst sig på Marx.

Den här utvikningen är inte ett bevis på att jag är okänslig för alla de intellektuella – kulturradikala som kulturkonservativa – som landsförvisades, avrättades eller självmant tystnade redan under Lenins tid. Jag säger bara att historien är komplex. Den som likt Wiman ställer upp Lenin på schackbrädet måste veta vilken häst – eller kanske bonde? – hen spelar med.

Tyska revolutionen 1918 är ett stoltare exempel på den marxistiska kulturradikalismens emancipatoriska historia, som jag skrivit om tidigare (Aftonbladet 11 augusti 2009). Den födde Weimarrepubliken med dess blomstrande kulturliv i alla ideologiska schatteringar.

Problemet i dag är att det emancipatoriska projektet har avstannat. Politiken nu handlar om huruvida vi ska kunna ta tillbaka ens ett uns av vad vi blivit fråntagna de senaste decennierna.

Det är ur det perspektivet som månaderna med Håkan Juholt blir intressanta. Juholt, som den fördomsfrie kulturradikalen Wiman jämförde med Jeppe på berget – pöbelrepresentanten som vältrade sig i grevens säng under falsk täckmantel.

Visst hade Juholt personliga tillkortakommanden, men struntar vi i Juholts person för en stund, ser vi att politiskt var han den förste socialdemokratiske partiledaren på åratal som visade en ärlig vilja till social utjämning – till att det emancipatoriska projektet skulle skaka i gång igen.

I dag är de ökade klyftorna återigen en ickefråga i politiken.

Wiman påstår att jag vill ha åsiktskongruenta kultursidor. Det är självklart inte sant, men jag saknar den maktkritiska kompass som tidigare utmärkt DN Kultur. Inte för att få min världsbild bekräftad, utan för att DN Kultur har tagit sitt ansvar för att medelklassen ska stå på en humanistisk, socialliberal grund.

Kulturradikalismen, skriver Wiman, ”är en livshållning som slår mot alla system och dogmer”. Det är sant, men det betyder ju inte att en kulturradikal måste vara renons på ideologisk övertygelse och teoretisk begreppsapparat. Tvärtom! Allmänt ”frisinne”, som Wiman koketterar med, utmanar ingenting, räcker ingenstans.

På 40-talet tog Herbert Tingsten och Ingemar Hedenius strid mot kyrkan och monarkin. På 60-talet tog Olof Lagercrantz strid mot USA-imperialismen. (För att nämna just DN-liberaler.) Så frågan är: Vilka nuvarande ”system och dogmer” vill kulturradikalen Björn Wiman att kulturen ska hjälpa oss att synliggöra och kanske till och med kullkasta? Är de livsbetingelser som gör människor så desperata att de känner klasshat ett av de system som ska problematiseras? Eller är hatet och orättvisorna bara en dogm?

I väntan på svar vilar jag i en strof ur kulturradikalen Lars Forssells Oktoberdikter (1971) om Lenin:

Det finns inga skäl för optimism/

Det finns inga skäl för pessimism/

Det finns skäl för revolution

Med de orden vill jag lika lite som Forssell uttrycka nån önskan att rent fysiskt skada borgarklassen och dess rörelseintellektuella. Jag säger bara att det är dags att organisera samhället på ett annat sätt än vi gör nu. Om publiken på Dramaten verkligen menar allvar med sina entusiastiska applåder för Johan Jönsons poesi, finns det alla möjligheter.

Åsa Linderborg

Hearing Like an LRAD

What’s fascinating to me about the LRAD — or “Long Range Acoustic Device” — is the way violence and speech become literally the same thing. To ask the question of whether an LRAD is designed to hurt people or designed to communicate across long distances with people is to mystify its central design function: it is a technology whose purpose is to FORCE you to listen and obey, and one which is less interested in the difference than you’d think. Feature and bug merge. Ideally, perhaps, the “you” it targets will obey the communicated threat, sparing police the need to force you to obey and sparing them the need to produce the spectacle of people running away while holding their ears. But the whole point of having an LRAD is to ensure that one way or another, the police can get the people they address to do what they want them to do.

You can see this blending happening, for example, on the LRAD homepage (since LRAD is both a brand name and the device it manufactures), where this fact sheet tells the story of how the LRAD is meant to be used, what they call a “layered defense/escalation of force strategy for law enforcement and government agencies.” By this, they simply mean the spectrum that connects telling people that you will hurt them if they don’t obey to actually hurting them with sound, a spectrum that cannot, as a result, clearly distinguish them.

The following steps are taken when deploying LRAD for communications.

Step 1 – Operator broadcasts directions/instructions in a loud, clear voice

  • The focused directional audio broadcast is an effective tool for communicating clearly over distance or loud background noise to individuals, small groups and large crowds.
  • Pre-recorded messages can be broadcast in multiple languages providing law enforcement with preplanned responses that address a variety of populations clearly and effectively.
  • Hailing and warning in a clear, authoritative voice to provide undeniable instructions and direction.

Step 2 – If direction is not taken, operator then broadcasts with a more authoritative message

  • Deployment of LRAD at increased volume levels can influence behavior and create safety zones for law enforcement personnel while preventing the need for additional escalation of force.
  • Stand-down or move to more aggressive stance.

Step 3 – If directions/instructions are not taken, operator employs the LRAD deterrent tone towards people/persons creating the threatening situation

  • LRAD creates increased standoff and safety zones, supports resolution of uncertain situations, and potentially prevents the use of harmful or deadly force
  • LRAD is equipped with a volume control knob. Unlike tear gas, tasers, rubber bullets, pepper spray and other non-lethal and lethal responses, LRAD can be modulated in response to actions of the target threat

Step 4 - Law enforcement utilizes higher levels of force such as tear gas, smoke, FN 303 or tasers.

Note the way all 4 steps are included within “deploying LRAD for communication”; even using “tear gas, smoke, FN 303 or tasers” in step four are actually part of the layered escalation. And note that while there are particular “deterrent” tones — step three — there is also, always, the option to just TURN UP THE VOLUME. If you give a nice peaceful order, and it isn’t obeyed (but you still don’t want to start tasing people, not just yet), just turn the knob. “Deployment of LRAD at increased volume levels can influence behavior.” There is a conceptual slippage here; at what point does it cease to be peaceful communication and become violence? Is it when “directions/instructions are not taken” which seems (in step 3) to create, as such, a “threatening situation”? Or perhaps the communication has already always been violence when you begin with distance as the central fact, when you are using “pre-recorded messages,” and when a phrase like “provide undeniable instructions” — not “unmistakable,” but “undeniable” — seems like a reasonable thing to say.

After all, the notion of the “order to disperse” is that you are “communicated” a choice: disperse and be spared the punishment, or refuse to disperse and receive the punishment you have chosen to deserve. The “order,” in this context, is a warning, a statement; it may even be said to be an effort to save you — the protester — from being beaten, tear-gassed, etc. Indeed, as a narrative, it constitutes “you” — the citizen — as a subjective entity both capable of and entitled to a choice. The bullhorn is one tool, but the club, the tear gas, and the flash-bang are another. You are informed of the law, informed what you need to do to obey it, and then, if that fails, the state’s monopoly on violence will be exercised. That, any way, is the conventional (liberal) understanding of how policing is meant to work: there is a rule, and if you don’t follow it, force will be used to restore order.

In other words, what’s fascinating to me about what happens when you “see like an LRAD” is that this narrative (which is already always tenuous anyway) completely comes apart, becomes completely unsustainable. It is simply about power. Communicati0n is a means of making you obey — one cannot, after all, speak back to an LRAD, since it’s simply one-way projection — and the violence of forcing compliance takes up the sonic register, similarly displacing sound as a vector for dialogue. There are simply higher and lower volumes.

Paul Mason - Greece: Trying to understand SYRIZA

Paul Mason - Greece: Trying to understand SYRIZA

This is less of a blog more of a series of notes to try and enhance understanding of who SYRIZA and its leader Alexis Tsipras actually are, and how they might behave if, as polls suggest, they become the winning party in a second Greek general election. I’ve been troubled by the lack of historical depth in most of the profiles published in newspapers; and of course my own knowledge is limited to English sources. I’ve checked this with two authoritative Greek sources. It should go up on my BBC blog soon. Get ready to hear about parties and political currents that most commentators believed were insignificant just a few years ago:

SYRIZA is an acronym signifying “Coalition of the Radical Left”. It’s key component is a party called Synaspismos, itself an umbrella group of the far left in Greece.

Alexis Tsipras is the 38 year old leader of the Synaspismos party, and rose to prominence as its candidate for the mayor of Athens in 2006. Tsipras originated from the youth wing of the Communist Party, the KKE.

Greek communism, like most of western communism after the 1970s, was split into two hostile parties: the KKE of the “interior” and that of the “exterior” – the latter denoting a Moscow-oriented party, the former denoting a Euro-communist, more parliamentary and socially liberal agenda.

Initially Synaspismos was the electoral alliance between the two KKEs. But in the early 1990s the main Moscow-oriented KKE quit the alliance, purging about 45% of its members, who then stayed inside Synaspismos with the Eurocommunists. These included Tsipras.

Synaspismos then evolved in an interesting direction. Reacting to the rise of the anti-globalisation movement, first of all the party itself became a highly diverse left umbrella group: of Eurocommunists, left-social Democrats, far leftists, and ecologists. It played a significant role in mobilizations against summits, beginning in Genoa 2001 and beyond. Meanwhile the main KKE remained a traditional Communist party, rooted in public sector and manual trade unions.

Then, in the 2004 election, Synaspismos came together with other small parties to form SYRIZA. These included a split-off from the British SWP, a split off from the main Communist Party and another group of eco-leftists.

Under Tsipras’ leadership, and invigorated by now including the entire left except the traditionalist KKE, SYRIZA grew the far left’s vote from 3.3% to 5.6% in the 2007 election – giving it 14 MPs.

The crisis which broke out in December 2008, after the police shooting of a 15 year old schoolboy led to two weeks of rioting by the youth and poor of Athens, further strengthened SYRIZA as a left pole of attraction. Though the parties inside SYRIZA remained in the low thousands of members, many young people began to identify with them – above all in a country where Marxism has massive prestige due to its role in both the anti-fascist resistance and in the 1946-49 Civil War. In addition, those migrants with the right to vote, hearing a rising chorus of anti-migrant rhetoric from the centre as well as the right, have flocked to vote SYRIZA.

Once George Papandreou’s PASOK party committed itself to supporting EU-designed austerity programmes, after January 2010, a huge political gap opened up on the left of Greek politics – which arguably forms a natural majority. Only the KKE and SYRIZA were opposed to austerity and of the two SYRIZA had a political leadership of youth, resilience and global vision.

(It is worth noting here the character of PASOK. It emerged in the inter-war years as a split from republican liberalism, and while it became a traditional social democratic party after the fall of the Colonels regime in 1974, its forms of organization, and mass base among civil servants and small business people, lead some to compare it to Argentine “Peronism” – that is left nationalism with a working class base. This affects the political dynamics the moment the PASOK leadership loses its claim to represent “the nation” in conflict with the EU.

As events pulled SYRIZA leftward, and swelled its support, one final split took place that may prove highly significant. Veteran leaders of the old KKE-interior – that is, the Eurocommunists – split from Synaspismos and formed the Democratic Left, led by Fotis Kouvelis – in March 2010. They formed a separate parliamentary group of 4 until the recent election massively swelled their numbers to 19. At the first congress of the Democratic Left, in March 2011, in an extraordinary move, the then serving PASOK prime minister, George Papandreou, attended, sat in the front row of the audience, and applauded.

Now, how to make sense of this, and why does it matter?

The mainstream PASOK party split before the May 2012 election. Six sitting MPs joined the Democratic Left, while others tried to form an anti-austerity left social democratic party, led by charismatic female MP Louka Katseli. The latter disappeared without trace. But the PASOK left and its voters now co-exist with the former Eurocommunists in a fairly moderate, anti-austerity but essentially left social democratic, pro-Euro party – the Dem Left - which now has 19 seats.

SYRIZA massively scooped up the votes of leftist, progressive, socially liberal young people, as well as the trade union voters not specifically aligned with the Communist Party, to gain 52 seats.

The Communist Party itself, while growing its vote, did not break out of its traditional demographic base – manual workers, older lifelong Communists with family loyalty traced back to the pre-war workers’ movement. The KKE gained 26 seats.

In the negotiations to form a government this week the PASOK leader, Venizelos, got the Democratic Left as far as agreeing to a programme to “progressively disengage” from the Troika-imposed austerity. But they could not persuade SYRIZA to join, and without SYRIZA, the Dem Left knew it would be the captive of a PASOK/ND coalition.

As new elections loom, obviously one possible outcome is the return of voters to ND and PASOK. But the latest polls do not signal this. They signal a growth in support for SYRIZA, which is seen as a consistent opponent of austerity on the left, and which has narrative and momentum among the traditional base of all other leftist parties.

If we look at the demographics of the left, there are the following:

  • anarchist minded youth, living alternative lifestyles among the poor, who will only vote for SYRIZA or not at all. (Anecdotally, even some members of the “black bloc” were reported to have joined SYRIZA, after accepting the futility of constant rioting/counterculture.
  • Middle-class and professional workers, including many public servants who’ve been hit by tax rises, wage cuts, arbitrary deductions, loss of entitlements and job losses
  • Private sector trade unionists
  • Migrants and the urban poor
  • Small businesspeople who formerly were the base of PASOK but who have been radicalized by the tax rises, tax clampdowns and repeated heavy policing of demonstrations, and who are the most likely to be ruined by any longterm structural reform in Greece.

The success of SYRIZA then seems down to its ability to attract voters and activists from all these groups, eating into almost every part of the left including the old Moscow-style KKE.

In the process of negotiations over the past seven days, Tsipras and his close advisers have further upped their own credibility by being seen to play the game of constitutional negotiations; sticking to their economic rejection of austerity stance, but in general not going out of their way to alienate, rhetorically, natural PASOK, Dem Left or KKE voters.

In the NET poll, taken while Tsipras was making his doomed attempt to form an anti-austerity government of the left, SYRIZA scored 27% - compared to its election showing of 17% - clearly demonstrating that it had created momentum as the pole of attraction for left voters wanting a showdown with the EU. PASOK was losing ground to both SYRIZA and the Dem Left. Some KKE voters were saying they would switch votes to SYRIZA in a second election.

When I spoke to leading members of SYRIZA in summer 2011 they were privately very pessimistic about the possibility of forming a government – even an alliance of all the left including splits from PASOK. At that time they said the most obvious solution would be an above-politics left-nationalist figure, a “Greek Kirchner” or “Greek Morales”, and that the absence of such a figure would make it impossible to form what Marxists refer to as a “workers government” – ie a radical reforming government with the participation of the far left, but limited to parliamentary means.

Now however, the charisma of Mr Tsipras, the fear of a far-right backlash, the depth of the crisis and the seeming inability of PASOK to recover may thrust Tsipras himself into the Morales role. Of all the left party leaders he is the least encumbered by a rigid ideology, because SYRIZA remains highly diverse and internally democratic as a party. And he is tangibly a generation younger than the other leaders. (PASOK’s further problem is that its younger politicians tend to be on the technocratic right of social democracy).

When I interviewed a SYRIZA spokesman earlier this year I explored the problem of a far-left party, which is anti-NATO etc, taking power in a country whose riot police have been regularly clashing with that party’s youth since 2008. The message was that they would be purposefully limited in aim, and that the core of any programme would be a debtor-led partial default – that is, the suspension of interest payments on the remaining debt and a repudiation of the terms of both Troika-brokered bailouts. What SYRIZA shares with the Dem Left and PASOK it its commitment to the EU social model: they are left globalists. Hence they could make any attempt to force Greece out of the Euro look, to the Greek population, like a Brussels/Berlin inititative, no matter how it looks to the rest of the world.

So, for example, speaking on condition of anonymity a one of SYRIZA’s MPs told me today: “The austerity programs don’t work and we have to persuade our European partners about it. SYRIZA is a responsible political force, it’s in favour of a new paradigm without rejecting the Euro. What SYRIZA is rejecting is the actual monetary policy of the Eurozone; we want to reform the ECB. We have to seize the opportunity: in Europe now there are more voices in favour of the need for growth, less austerity; the Hollande election in France may change things, creating a new framework. Greece could benefit from this, but only if there is a government in Athens with the political will to radically change things.”

If, in the next election, SYRIZA scores 26% it would get about the same number of seats, under the vote redistribution rule, as ND got this time – say just over 100. If, on top of that the Dem Left vote holds up, with about 20 seats, and the Communists retain their 26 seats, that is very close to the 150 they would need for a majority.

It is being rumoured that SYRIZA may soon transform itself into a single party and extend membership to a far left group called Antarsia (which gained 1%) and the Louka Katseli group from PASOK which failed to gain seats, and the Eco-Greens, who polled below 3%. That would extend its reach even further both to its right and left.

Even without a majority, a SYRIZA-DL minority could attempt a legislative programme that relied on the abstention of some of PASOK’s remaining MPs, tacit “non-opposition” form the KKE, and, paradoxically, the non-opposition of the right wing anti-austerity party Independent Greeks (conservative nationalist). One current obstacle to this is the KKE’s historic enmity to SYRIZA and indeed the entire rest of the Greek left.

Whatever the outcome, the above explains how a combination of historical factors, the position of the EU and a demographic radicalization of young people propelled one of the furthest left parties in any European parliament to within a few steps of forming a government; and provoking a showdown with the EU that would doubtless see Greece’s suspension or exit from the Euro.

At the same time it explains that the resulting government may, in effect, be little more than a left-social democratic government, despite its symbology and the radicalism of some of its voters. By forcing the mainstream parties into positions where they could not express the will of the majority of centrist voters, the EU may end up destroying the Greek party system as it has been shaped since 1974.

Why Europe needs Greece – Costas Lapavitsas | Coalition of Resistance Against Cuts & Privatisation

Why Europe needs Greece – Costas Lapavitsas

By Costas Lapavitsas

Syriza, led by Alexis Tsipras, centre, 'stands every chance of … forming a coalition government of anti-bailout forces' in Greece. Photograph: Simela Pantzartzi/EPA

The clear winner of the recent Greek elections is Syriza, a coalition of leftwing organisations active for several years. The fascist Golden Dawn party has also made stunning gains but its rise, disturbing as it might be, is neither the main outcome of the elections, nor yet a major threat to Greek society. Political momentum belongs to Syriza. If it gets its act together, it could help resolve the crisis and give a boost to the European anti-austerity movement.

The two staple parties of Greek government – Pasok and New Democracy – have been trounced for bringing the country to this pass over four decades, and for implementing the bailout agreements. The Greek electorate has clearly stated what it does not want: old politics and the so-called rescue by the troika of the EU, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank.

During the past two years a parade of mediocre Greek politicians have pretended to negotiate with the troika, while decrying their own country as “corrupt”. They were backed by technical experts terrified at the thought of displeasing the lenders to Greece. Some of the politicians and experts were people who had also handled the disastrous Greek entry into European monetary union. The result was two bailout agreements, in May 2010 and March 2012 – monuments to bad economics and social callousness. By the end of 2012 austerity will have led to contraction of the Greek economy by 20%, a jump in unemployment toward 25%, a full-blown humanitarian crisis in the urban centres, and a completely unmanageable public debt. Greece is dying on its feet. Meanwhile its old political class twitters on about participating in the European “game” and making structural reforms that will bring growth in the future.

Syriza has caused an earthquake by denouncing March’s bailout. It has called for a moratorium on debt payments, an international commission to audit Greek debt, aggressive debt write-offs, deep redistribution of income and wealth, bank nationalisation, and a new industrial policy to rejuvenate the manufacturing sector. These measures are exactly what the Greek economy needs. Implementing them depends entirely on rejecting the recent bailout and stopping payments on the debt.

Syriza believes that the measures can be introduced while the country remains within the eurozone. It has been unwilling to call for Greek exit, thus increasing its appeal to voters who worry about the aftermath of exit and believe that the euro is integral to the European identity of Greeks. In my view, and that of many other economists, it would be impossible for Greece to stay in the eurozone if it went down this path. Moreover, exit would be both necessary and beneficial to the economy in the medium term, and remains the most likely outcome for Greece. If Syriza really wanted to contribute to solving the crisis, it should get itself ready for this eventuality.

Nonetheless, the pressing issue at the moment is to free the country from the stranglehold of debt and austerity. As long as Syriza is prepared to take action to achieve these aims, and the Greek people wish to give it the benefit of the doubt on the euro, its role can be positive. At the very least, it offers a chance for Greece to avoid a complete disaster that might truly lead to the rise of fascism.

The current round of domestic political negotiations is unlikely to lead to a government being formed, especially one that could continue to implement the terms of the bailout. There will probably be new elections in the near future and Syriza stands every chance of winning decisively, thus forming a coalition government of the anti-bailout forces. But for this, Syriza should realise its own limitations, and actively seek to create the broad political front that Greece needs.

It is important to seek unity at all times, avoiding both gloating and the ancient factionalism of the Greek left. Syriza will need the active co-operation of the rest of the left if it is to muster sufficient forces to deal with the storm ahead. It is equally important to improve its appeal to experienced and knowledgeable people across society, for it will need many more in its ranks.

Finally, if there is a new government led by Syriza, it will rely on the support of people across Europe to tackle the catastrophe inflicted on Greece by the eurozone crisis. The first major battle against austerity is about to begin in Greece, and all European people have an interest in winning it.

From the Guardian

Greklandslänkar 2

En komplettering till gårdagens post. Den grekiska regeringsbildningsdramatiken har fortsatt. Det är intressanta positioner som nu intas. Inte minst verkar det som att partiet DIMAR ("Demokratiska Vänstern") är inställda på att svika sin valretorik mot nedskärningspolitiken, och göra den framgångsrika vänsteralliansen Syriza till sin främsta måltavla.

För en djupare förståelse av det som sker rekommenderar jag denna välskrivna genomgång, av BBC-journalisten och författaren Paul Mason. Han beskriver de många splittringarna och nyformeringarna på vänsterkanten i Grekland, och hur Syriza har resonerat redan före den stora valframgången. Läsvärt!

En annan (kortare) artikel som rekommenderas, är skriven av den framstående och radikale grekiske ekonomen Costas Lapavistas. Han skriver med stor uppskattning om Syriza, samtidigt som han påpekar att partiet måste förbereda sig mer på ett faktiskt (och smärtsamt) utträde ur eurozonen. Huvudpoängen är det som också var min slutsats i förra inlägget:

Syriza’s electoral success marks the start of the first major battle against austerity. The whole continent should will them to win.
 Ja, så var det detta med DIMAR:s position. Partiet är en slags parlamentariskt baserad högerutbrytning från Synaspismos/Syriza (de kallade sig givetvis "förnyare"), som inför valet förstärktes med avhoppade parlamentariker från Pasok (Socialdemokraterna). De säger sig fortfarande vara mot nedskärningspolitiken (eller för mildare sådana) men partiledaren Kouvelis har gjort behovet av en "ekumenisk" regering till sin huvudfråga, och börjat anklaga Syriza för att vara ett hinder för "ansvarig" regeringsbildning.

Sent igår kväll kom det rykten om att Syriza skulle vägra gå på ett nytt möte som presidenten utlyst till ikväll. Detta dementeras av Syriza, som säger sig vara beredda att delta på alla möten, med alla utom nynazisterna, men som givetvis vidhåller sina politiska positioner. Vi blir ombedda att "bli medbrottslingar" till den ohållbara nedskärningspolitiken, som man uttryckt det.

 Idag skärper Kouvelis tonen ytterligare, genom att kalla Syriza-ledningens politiska tydlighet och fokus på de centrala frågor de gick till val på, för ett "PR-stunt", och säga att de inte kommer att samarbeta med Syriza heller efter ett nyval.

Den tragiska feghet och den vilja till att krypa tillbaka in i den politiska elitens värme, som DIMAR-ledningen visar när konflikten verkligen hårdnar (och som har mött hätsk intern kritik från vissa grupperingar), är på sätt och vis symptomatisk. I ett i grunden EU-positivt politiskt landskap, har DIMAR önskat vara de mest ihärdiga – och verklighetsfrånvända – "Europavännerna". Vi ser vad det betyder i praktiken – att lägga sig platt för den politiska och byråkratiska inkarnationen av Europas ekonomiska eliter.

Man får hoppas att Syriza pallar trycket, och att Grekland – troligen efter ett nyval – kan gå från att vara "Europas sjuke man" till att bli en vägvisar ut ur det kvävande nedskärningseländet som nu släppts loss över hela kontinenten.

Drug-resistant cancer cells cannot resist plasmonic nanobubbles

Dmitri Lapotko. (Credit: Jeff Fitlow/Rice University)

In yet another wrinkle in the rapidly developing area of using nanotechnology to enhance cancer chemotherapy, targeted nanoparticles were used to produce “nanobubbles” inside cancer cells instead of to deliver a chemotherapy drug to the cancer cells. In laboratory tests, the nanobubbles proved to be much more efficient in specifically killing cancer cells while sparing neighboring healthy cells. A hat tip to ScienceDaily for reprinting this Rice University news release with its embedded video “‘Nanobubbles’ plus chemotherapy equals single-cell cancer targeting“:

Using light-harvesting nanoparticles to convert laser energy into “plasmonic nanobubbles,” researchers at Rice University, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) are developing new methods to inject drugs and genetic payloads directly into cancer cells. In tests on drug-resistant cancer cells, the researchers found that delivering chemotherapy drugs with nanobubbles was up to 30 times more deadly to cancer cells than traditional drug treatment and required less than one-tenth the clinical dose.

“We are delivering cancer drugs or other genetic cargo at the single-cell level,” said Rice’s Dmitri Lapotko, a biologist and physicist whose plasmonic nanobubble technique is the subject of four new peer-reviewed studies, including one due later this month in the journal Biomaterials and another published April 3 in the journal PLoS ONE [Open Access research article]. “By avoiding healthy cells and delivering the drugs directly inside cancer cells, we can simultaneously increase drug efficacy while lowering the dosage,” he said. …

Rice’s nanobubbles are not nanoparticles; rather, they are short-lived events. The nanobubbles are tiny pockets of air and water vapor that are created when laser light strikes a cluster of nanoparticles and is converted instantly into heat. The bubbles form just below the surface of cancer cells. As the bubbles expand and burst, they briefly open small holes in the surface of the cells and allow cancer drugs to rush inside. The same technique can be used to deliver gene therapies and other therapeutic payloads directly into cells.

This method, which has yet to be tested in animals, will require more research before it might be ready for human testing, said Lapotko, faculty fellow in biochemistry and cell biology and in physics and astronomy at Rice. …

To form the nanobubbles, the researchers must first get the gold nanoclusters inside the cancer cells. The scientists do this by tagging individual gold nanoparticles with an antibody that binds to the surface of the cancer cell. Cells ingest the gold nanoparticles and sequester them together in tiny pockets just below their surfaces.

While a few gold nanoparticles are taken up by healthy cells, the cancer cells take up far more, and the selectivity of the procedure owes to the fact that the minimum threshold of laser energy needed to form a nanobubble in a cancer cell is too low to form a nanobubble in a healthy cell

A given molecular targeting strategy can only achieve a certain ratio of entering cancer cells to entering healthy cells. As the cancer evolves to become more resistant to the drug, that ratio becomes inadequate to kill cancer cells while sparing healthy cells. But because the laser pulse can be precisely controlled, the ratio of gold nanoparticles in cancer cells to the amount in healthy cells is sufficient to ensure that nanobubbles only form in cancer cells, so the drug can only enter the cancer cells. If this approach works as well in an animal model as it does in laboratory cell cultures, it might develop into an effective therapy to kill drug-resistant tumor cells.
—James Lewis, PhD

Greklandslänkar

"Greklands parlamentariska demokrati har fötts på nytt", skrev Kajsa Ekis Ekman i en välbehövlig artikel i DN häromdagen, apropå valresultatet som tydligt underkände den inhemska politiska elitens samspel med EU-maskineriet.

På grund av det märkliga valsystemet i Grekland, som är designad för att förstärka ordningen med två partier som byter av vid makten, blir inte kollapsen för pro-överenskommelsepartierna riktigt lika tydlig i mandat. (Konservativa Ny Demokrati blev med nöd och näppe största parti och får 40 extramandat). Men resultatet är otvetydigt: folk villl ha en ändring. En del av den ändringsviljan artar sig i mycket obehagliga tendenser. Som att det explicit nynazistiska Ny Gryning tar plats i parlamentet. Det är ännu ett av många påminnelser på att vindarna från skiftet mellan 20- och 30-talet blåser i ny tappning i Europa. Samtidigt är det fel att lyfta upp de högerextrema framgångarna som det enda karaktäristiska med det grekiska valet. Man måste komma ihåg att en hel del av rösterna för Ny Gryning uppenbarligen kommer från högerkristna/protofascistiska LAOS, som ju ett tag till och med satt i "samlingsregeringen" tillsammans med Ny Demokrati och Socialdemokraterna PASOK. Högerextrema grupperingar har i olika former varit närvarande i grekisk politik länge, och det är både intressant och alarmerande att en undersökning visar att uppemot halva poliskåren kan ha röstat nynazistiskt! Och framför allt är det vänsterns framgångar som är slående i valet – i en situation med hårdnande politiska fronter och ett sammanbrott för de tidigare eliternas position inom de politiska institutionerna.

Nu pekar allt mot att ingen regering kan bildas och att det kan bli nyval redan i juni. I det läget blir det extremt viktigt hur de progressiva krafterna kan uppträda i sitt mobiliseringsarbete. Det blir avgörande om man ska kunna stå emot det enorma trycket från olika håll i Europa och gå framåt med en ny dagordning. Men det finns en del tecken på att den splittrade grekiska vänstern äntligen har fått en del pusselbitar på plats. Vänsteralliansen SYRIZA var valets stora vinnare, och är nu till och med det allra största partiet i opinionsmätningar som har gjorts efter valet. Partiet fick uppdrag att försöka bilda regering efter att Ny Demokrati gav upp och uppträdde enligt min mening mycket resolut och värdigt.

Jag rekommenderar varmt en läsning av det här tvåsidiga uttalandet som preciserade SYRIZA:s position i regeringsförhandlingarna.

Föreslår också en läsning av denna krönika av den grekiske frilansjournalisten Matthaios Tsimitakis, som på ett förtjänstfullt sätt förklarar varför man bör imponeras av den grekiska vänsterns framgångar den här gången. De lyckades, skriver han, övertyga det grekiska folket om dessa grundläggande fakta:

  1. That Greece's problem is really a structural European problem; and
  2. That the troika (the IMF, the European Central Bank, and the European Union) are waging a class war against workers' rights, in Greece as well as the rest of Europe, with fiscal discipline as their main weapon.
This is extraordinary not only because of the historical significance of having a radical left party leading the conversation, but because it managed to bypass attempts to polarise the political agenda around issues such as illegal immigration, national security and social order, instead bringing to the forefront the issues of economic justice and social coherence.
Just detta gör i dagsläget den grekiska vänstern till europeiska föredömen. Vägen är ännu mycket lång. Greklands ekonomiska situation är mycket allvarligt. Näringsstrukturen är tilltuffsad, den politiska korruptionen stor, skattesystemet ineffektivt. Och vänstern är fortfarande spretig och ibland irriterande grälsjuk. Men det är något mycket stort och viktigt som de grekiska progressiva har åstadkommit nu och vi har all anledning att bjuda dem respekt och solidaritet.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Läs också:
- "Faktakoll på Grekland" i Fria tidningen
- "Den late greker", ett PM från Manifest Analyse för den som vill läsa mer om myterna
- PASOK:s hela partistyrelse avgår
- "Greece should follow Argentina's lead", i The Observer