By Antonio Padron in Geneva

Anouar Gharbi was born in Tunisia; he is the president of Right for all/Droit pour Tous, created in 2000. He and his family live in Geneva.

I first met Anouar Gharbi on a clear and beautiful day in April. He does not at first look like an activist involved in pro-Palestinian activities, but more like a lawyer representing angry wives and jealous husbands. When you speak with him, you notice that his soft-spoken voice disguises an iron determination to have his voice heard.

When he talks about the Middle-East, Gharbi is candid but frank. He thinks the “Arab Awakening” is a positive step in the right direction. But he quickly points out that the Arabs have a long way to go. It is not enough that the Egyptian and Tunisian people and many others have said “enough is enough”.

“Democracy is a process, not a quick militant action.” He notes that Israel can no longer call itself the only democracy in the Middle East. “Hope is alive,” Gharbi says, after seeing the millions who turned out to protest and demand change.

On Osama Bin Laden: Gharbi comments that Al-Qaida’s philosophy of violent jihad has become irrelevant, even completely outrageous. “The people want change. The men in power in the Middle East need to hear the voices of their populations. It is not enough to change faces; it is necessary to change policy. Many Arab leaders have supported the anti-Israeli resistance, but have not heard the cries from their people. In order for there to be progress, the people must be heard.”

On Syrian President Bashar Al Assad: Gharbi will tell you that his support for the many Arab resistance groups such as Hamas, PFLP and
Hezbollah, has been exemplary. “A strong Arab, but he has lost the support of his people by repressing them.”

Gharbi calls the situation in Gaza “catastrophic. The people in Gaza lack medical supplies and they live on donations. It does not help that the Israeli government has stopped all necessary aid from reaching the Palestinian population. That is the main idea of the flotilla to Gaza, to break the siege imposed by Israel. The international community must understand that in order to help the population in Gaza, the right amount of pressure must be put on Israel.”

When asked if Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side, he quickly points out that the Palestinian people must first be allowed to choose their own government without facing negative consequences from the international community. “They must be supported,” he says. “There are extremist forces on both sides.  There are those who want peace and those who want confrontation. In order for both people to live side by side, both sides must be heard and their opinions and rights must be respected. In relation to the rocket attacks by Hamas, both sides have accused each other of starting the offensive.”

Gharbi’s decision to establish his organization, Droit pour Tout, followed the 2000 visit by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the Al Aqsa-mosque. “We are different peoples. This does not mean we can’t live together, it just means that we must each respect our differences.”

We turn our conversation to the September 11th terrorist attacks against the United States. When asked about conspiracy theories, he pauses and reflects. “While the attacks were most definitively perpetrated by Al Qaida, it would be a terrible mistake to think that the attacks did not help to serve long-held American interests to control and occupy the Middle East” for the region’s vast natural resources. “It was a shame that Osama Bin Laden could not be brought to trial. A lot of questions remain on this subject.”

The decision to form a no-fly zone over Libya is a controversial one for him. Western governments’ intentions might appear honest but their economic interests are ever-present and no one seems to pose the question, why Libya and why not Syria. “It is a dangerous game that Nato  is playing,” Gharbi says.

Gharbi argues that “pressure must be put on the Israeli government to respect United Nations resolutions”, noting that the only resolution the Israelis seem to respect is the foundation of the Jewish state. “Why hasn’t Israel been bombarded yet?” The international community decided to bomb Iraq because it did not respect the international community’s decisions, he points out, and Arabs are still waiting for the international community to say to Israel that “enough is enough”.

By Andy Sundberg

It was with great sadness that I learned that Don Curtis, a wonderful American who had been living here in Geneva for many years, had passed away last week on the 16th of June.

There will be a memorial service for Don at 3pm on Thursday, the 23rd of June, at the Emmanuel Church (formerly the American Church), 3 Rue de Monthoux, across the street from the Kempinski Hotel.

His family has asked that instead of flowers, you might want to consider a donation to the foundation, “SOS Villages d’Enfants Suisse, Cp 30-31935-2.”

Don was the former head of the Vestry at the American Church when I served as one of his colleagues there a decade ago.

He was a most kind and gentle leader, with much creativity, enthusiasm and generosity.

As this story published by Forbes in 2009 also indicates, Don was an active participant in the overseas American tax arena, as chief executive of Curtis & Co., and he was a key provider of much needed advice for many Americans here in Geneva.

Ed. note: Andy Sundberg, founder of American Citizens Abroad, occasionally contributes to this guest blog.

By Martyn Warwick

Republished with permission from TelecomTV One . Martyn Warwick is board director, Telecom TV

Biased? FCC calls location-based tracking a “boon to the economy” even as it sets up forum to debate the issue

In the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is to hold a day-long “public education forum” to “study the risks and benefits” of location-based services and the tracking of smartphone users. Yes, a whole day. We are not worthy – obviously.

Yes, there’s to be a full eight hours of waffle (minus coffee breaks and lunch of course) with half the day given over to Apple, Google and their ilk during which time they can bring their expensive heavy guns to bear and tell the world how great location tracking is and how misguided are those who oppose it.

“Consumer advocates” have also been invited to the June 28 event but critics say the day is likely to be hi-jacked by vested interests favouring tracking technologies and will be little more than a platform from which wireless carriers and technology companies will trumpet the benefits of location tracking whilst deriding the arguments of those who oppose such intrusions into personal liberty.

The FCC has finally be forced to do something – minimal though it may be – because of growing consumer concern and unrest following the revelation last month that iPhones routinely collect and transmit location data – even when a user turns off the tracking software. This secretly and illicitly collected data, Apple acknowledges, is then held for up to a year. It also transpires that Google’s Android-based mobile handsets also do something remarkably similar.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which is exhibiting rather more concern for the privacy rights of smartphones users than is the FCC, is also involved in the forum and has said that not only does it intent to write a report on location-bsed tracking and services but will also press the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, to regulate on the issue – something which the FCC should be doing off its own bat in any case.

In a what might best be described as a reluctant and biased statement, the FCC says, “Over the last few years, location-based services have become an important part of the mobile market and a boon to the economy.” Says who – apart from Apple and Google that is?

The statement continues, “Commercial location-based services include applications that help consumers find the lowest-priced product nearby or the nearest restaurant… But recent reports have raised concerns about the location-based information that is gathered when consumers use mobile devices.”

The June event will be the third time Apple has been called to give testimony on the issue and, who knows, maybe this time will prove to be lucky for exploited iPhone users. I would’t bet on it though. After all there’s a ton of money to be made from selling location data to advertisers and consumer privacy comes way, way down the list after a consideration like that.

Topics to be (briefly) aired at the forum include: “How location-based services work, their benefits and risks and information parents should know about location tracking of children using mobile devices.”

Elsewhere, an anonymous FCC apparatchik says, “While the use of location data has spurred innovation, the FCC’s National Broadband Plan recognizes that consumer apprehension about privacy can also act as a barrier to the adoption and utilization of broadband and mobile devices”.

This has got “whitewash” written all over it.

By Kerri Walker

I was standing at the bar at Clubhouse in Geneva one evening recently, passing some time drinking and talking with my boyfriend. The place was packed with runners and soccer fans that night. Two men I didn’t know, and who didn’t know me, grabbed my handbag from the bar, where it was sitting right next to me, and ran out of Clubhouse.

I didn’t see it happen and I was oblivious to the fact that my bag was stolen.

My story ends well, though.

I turned around and suddenly saw my handbag being placed next to me at the bar. Two servers who were working at Clubhouse had seen my bag being stolen. These two men chased the thieves, and they must have done it without thinking twice because they caught up to them. They got my bag back and returned it, next to me.

Iain, one of the two servers explained what had happened and that the Geneva police were waiting outside for me to go to the station and file a complaint. It took about 30 minutes to do so, then I went home with all of my belongings: nothing was stolen. And the servers who caught the thieves were unharmed. Later, when I sent Iain an e-mail to thank him and say I was surprised, he told said it’s normal for them to help and protect customers.

Every time I tell my story to people, they are amazed. “You are so lucky,” I hear, because most such stories end badly.

I was very lucky to get my bag back. I only had three francs and change in my wallet, but my two credit cards (one French and one American), my US driver’s license, and finally some lip gloss, and receipts were among the miscellaneous things that were more important to me than the change. I’m working as an au pair, and it would have been a huge financial blow for me to have had to replace those things, especially my American cards.

Two weeks after the incident, I am still amazed that people I had never met would run after thieves to return a purse to a stranger. The thieves could have been carrying weapons. The two servers from Clubhouse are my heroes: although there is evil and criminal behavior in the world, human kindness also exists.

I hope that by sharing my story here, people who read it will do two things:

• keep a close eye on your things when you are out, whether in Geneva or any other city, even if it does not seem like a crime city
• think about the impact you can have on someone else’s life by helping them, no questions asked, just going out of your way—even a little bit, it doesn’t have to be chasing a crimina.

by Matthew Stevenson

Matthew Stevenson is a Swiss-based writer, author of Remembering the Twentieth Century Limited, a collection of historical essays. He is also editor of Rules of the Game: The Best Sports Writing from Harper’s Magazine.

(Reprinted with permission from New Geography)

Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Rey (photo, 2009, Ellen Wallace)

Given that no one likes Switzerland’s banks, coo-coo clocks, high prices, smugness, dull cities, cheesy foods, or yodeling, I realize that it is too early to speak politically about “the Swiss Model.”

But it needs to be pointed out that while the European Union evaporates and Homeland America goes for broke, the world’s second oldest democracy (1291) has trade and budget surpluses, a multi-lingual population, a green network of trains and buses to every village, excellent public schools, and a federal-style government that is closer to Thomas Jefferson’s America than the bureaucratic monarchy that gives the king’s speeches in Washington.

Yes, the Swiss recently voted against the construction of minarets (NIMCP or “not in my cow pasture”) and for the eviction of immigrants convicted of serious crimes. (Would you vote “for” protecting the immigration rights of the rapist next door?) But a quarter of the students in Geneva’s public schools are foreign, and—in the age of focus groups and slick pollsters—the democracy remains in the hands of its citizenry, for better or for worse, which every two months votes on the referendums of the critical issues. On this month’s ballot is gun control.

A mythical Swiss story involves a man on a morning bus, chatting with someone standing near him, exchanging pleasantries about work and the weather, and discovering that his commuting friend is also the president of the Swiss confederation.

I had a similar experience. I had arrived at the Geneva Press Club on my bike, and discovered that the woman sitting near me was also the president, Micheline Calmy-Rey. To be clear, she was at the front of the room, and I was in the audience. But her unassuming manner was that of a bus commuter, and had she walked into the room unescorted, I would not have marked her as the leader of the country.

In a way, she is not. To be president of Switzerland is to be the head of a seven person federal council, whose members are apportioned according to the political parties in the parliament. Real power in the country remains vested in the villages and in the twenty-six cantons. Think of the Swiss president as the unlucky committee person who has to keep the minutes.

After the European revolutions of 1848, Switzerland adopted a federal constitution, in part modeled on the American system, although instead of the imperial presidency (which Jefferson called “a bad edition” of the Polish king), the Swiss went for an executive council. Benjamin Franklin had the same idea earlier for the U.S., but lost out to the more presidential Adams and Madison.

Read more…

by Ironman

Reproduced with permission from Ironman’s blog, Political Calculations, which has interactive options for calculating the number of pages required for the tax code in a given year and the tax code level of complexity for a given year.

How many pages does it take to record the US federal tax code?

It’s often been remarked that the growth in the complexity of the
US tax code can be measured by how many pages it takes to document
all the things that specify how much federal taxes any single
individual, household or business in the United States may have to
pay. Kay Bell recently featured the chart we’ve presented here from the
CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, which
illustrates just how many pages of the CCH Standard Federal Tax
Reporter would be required to contain all of the U.S. federal tax
code.

But that wasn’t good enough for us, so we created our own graphical version of the chart’s data, so we can better see how the US federal tax code has changed since the US implemented the income tax in 1913, when the entire federal tax code could have been contained in a single 400 page textbook.

What we find is that the tax code really didn’t explode in complexity until World War II, which we observe in the large jump from being just 504 pages in length in 1939 to 8,200 pages in 1945, the final year of the war. Since then, we find that the number of pages in the US federal tax code have grown at a near-steady exponential rate of 3.28% per year, which as of 2010, means that the US tax code has ballooned to be 71,684 pages in length!

But wait, there’s more! Because the tax code has grown consistently at this steady rate since 1945, we can project how much the complexity of the federal tax code can be expected to grow in the future.

Using this information we can create a tool that can either estimate the number of pages in the U.S. federal tax code between 1945
and 2010 or project how many pages can reasonably contain the federal tax code in the future, provided that US politicians and bureaucrats continue to add to its complexity at the same rate they averaged from 1945 up to 2010.

Using the default data in the tool above, where we’ve projected forward to the year 2012 when the next U.S. presidential election is
scheduled to occur, we find that the U.S. tax code will have grown to be approximately 74,994 pages in length, an increase of 7,388 pages, or 11%, from the 67,506 page long U.S. federal tax code of 2008.

That assumes though that today’s politicians and bureaucrats aren’t compelled to do something radical that might cause the complexity of the US federal tax code to really explode, much like what happened back in the 1940s because of the requirements of funding World War II.

Just what radical change that might be we’ll leave as an exercise
to our readers….

by Kerri Walker

Kerri Walker's official Lausanne Marathon photo

Ed. note: Kerri Walker, who ran the marathon, moved to the Lake Geneva region from New Jersey, USA, a few weeks ago.

This year marked the 18th running of the Lausanne Marathon. Marathon runners from over 60 countries and cities took off from Place de Milan in Ouchy, Lausanne at 10:10 Sunday 31 October. Marathon runners enjoyed optimal conditions from start to finish, with just some headwind through Cully en route to the finish at the Olympic Museum back in Ouchy. The marathon course, composed of rolling hills, went out to La Tour de-Peliz at which point runners turned around to go back to Ouchy for a picturesque finish in front of the Lausanne Olympic Museum.

There were 1,163 men and 180 women running the marathon. The first male, Hailu Begashow (1984) of Ecublens in canton Vaud, finished in two hours 20 minutes and two seconds.

The first female, Di Marco Messmer Magali (1971) from Troistorrents, finished in two hours, 54 minutes, and 10 seconds. Prize money was given to the top five men and women finishers.

Geneva was well represented at Lausanne’s marathon: about 300 Genevans raced last weekend. The highlights came from the 10km and marathon.

• Genevan Antonio Texeira (1956), who ran the marathon, placed first in his class of 205 men. His time was two hours and 51 minutes.
• Marc Baudat (1977) ran the 10km, finishing second in his class in 32 minutes and 50 seconds.
• Also in the 10km: Oliveira Narciso (1957) finished first in his class in 34 minutes 24 seconds
• Felfele Testay (1985) finished third in his class of 2,036 with a time of 30 minutes three seconds.

Lausanne and its people made for exceptional hosts to marathon runners. The night before the race, all runners and walkers were welcome to enjoy a complimentary pasta party held on the Lausanne paddlewheeler docked in Ouchy. Fuel was provided along the race course, with water, power gels, and powerade provided at 10 revitalization stations. Marathon runners were also fuelled by live music and enthusiastic spectators: “Hop! Allez!” they shouted to runners all the way to the end, in front of Le Musee Olympique. Runners could enjoy a free entry to the museum on marathon weekend. All who finished received a Suisse medal, and results of finishers were posted immediately.

For me, the Lausanne Marathon was especially memorable, being my first European marathon (I am from New Jersey and moved to Thoiry in France two months ago to work as an au pair). I ran three marathons in the US (Philadelphia, New York, and Miami). I try not to compare the marathons to one another; they are all different based on location and size of the race.

Lausanne stood out in my mind as the marathon with the beautiful scenery and traditional laid-back European Sunday atmosphere. The out and back course had an amazing backdrop of the mountains and lake. People waved and cheered along the streets and in their homes they shouted out the window. Many kids got their hands clapped by runners. I soaked up the spirit of the Lausanne Marathon—I clapped hands, said “Merci” to the spectators, and smiled for the pictures being taken. I did not feel like I was competing but rather just out for a long, Sunday run in a beautiful part of Switzerland.

While enjoying myself, I managed to PR (runner’s lingo for personal record) in three hours and 25 minutes. Ecstatic to have run so well, and feeling great, I went back to the finish just a half hour after my race to visit the Olympic Museum. I spent about an hour marvelling at the history of the Olympic Games then returned to see the results, already posted in Ouchy.

The Lausanne Marathon was very well organized and runners were excited to see the standings immediately. And to commemorate the weekend and the achievement, every runner’s medal is engraved with a picture of the Lausanne boat where we dined the night before the race. From start to finish, the marathon was well organized and I was able to concentrate on my run and enjoy my time in Lausanne.

I give the Lausanne Marathon Weekend two thumbs up!

By Shawn Lawrence Otto

Reprinted with permission from online community newspaper MinnPost, Minnesota, USA

Fifth and last article in a five-part science/travel series

The entrance to the Palazzo Bo, or Ox Palace (photo: Jake Otto)

Padova, Italy — I have been posting from Italy all week, where I have been talking with leading European science journalists about science debates. Most of the world’s great challenges now revolve around science policy issues, yet we are paralyzed on many of them because of politics. Science debates bring policymakers together with science and the public, highlighting key issues and helping to break logjams.

The Palazzo Bo coats of arms (photo: Jake Otto)

The ceiling of the entry to the Palazzo Bo looking out toward the courtyard (photo: Jake Otto)

This aspect is lost on many modern scientists, who seek to disavow association with science’s political dimensions, and, as a result have ceded some measure of public definition of reality back to ideologues.

Galileo simply spoke about his observations through a better telescope that could show the planets more clearly. Shadows on Jupiter, he told students, confirm what Copernicus had already postulated: the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. You can look for yourself, he told church officials. But they refused to look through his telescope.

Inherently political

Like many scientists, Galileo underestimated politics, and didn’t realize that the simple statement of an observable fact is a political act. It either affirms or denies the current power structure.

Consider this quote from Galileo’s 1633 indictment by the Roman Catholic Church, at the time the seat of world power:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

Therefore…, invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo…have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture.

Why did the church go to such great lengths to discredit this solitary man? For the same reason we fight political battles today over issues like climate change, and right-wing US senators seek to discredit scientists like Michael Mann, whose similarly iconic “hockey stick graph” charts the rise in average global temperatures.

Science sides with observation and measurement, not vested interests. Failing to acknowledge science’s inherently political nature leaves both science and America vulnerable to attack by anti-science thinking from both the right and left—thinking which has come to dominate American politics in the early 21st century—and leads to political rigidity and paralysis.

Modern-day call to defend science

Science has proved to be more powerful and beneficial to humans than anything previously developed. It has built up knowledge that has doubled our life spans, multiplied the productivity of our farms by more than 35 times, freed untold millions from manual farm labor and a life that was, in the words of 15th century writer Thomas Hobbes, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,” a “war of every man against every man.” It has given us tremendous insights into our place in the cosmos, into the inner workings of our own bodies, and into our capacity as human beings to exercise our highest aspirations of love, hope, creativity, curiosity, compassion, humility, courage and charity.

This good has come from the scientific process of questioning assumptions about the universe, dreaming up experiments that test those questions and, based on observations, incrementally building knowledge about nature that is independent of beliefs. A scientifically testable claim can be shown to be either probably true, or to be false, whether the claim is made by a king or a president, a pope, a congressman, or a common citizen. Because of this, science is anti-authoritarian, and a great equalizer of political power.

I came to Italy to talk about science and politics, but as I leave Padova, I am struck by how each generation from Galileo’s to my own must defend science, democracy and freedom of thought, as a moral imperative.

In that regard, we could learn from the courage of those early Italians.

Shawn Lawrence Otto is co-founder and CEO of sciencedebate.org. He wrote the screenplay for the Oscar-nominated movie “House of Sand and Fog” and won the Alfred P Sloan Foundation’s award for best science screenplay for “Hubble.” He also wrote the screenplay for the upcoming film “Dreams of a Dying Heart.” He lives in Minnesota, USA.

By Peter Gaechter

The news that the Basque separatist group, ETA, had called for a ceasefire last Sunday, 5 September caused little commotion in the Spanish capital, Madrid.  The Spanish government rejected ETA’s offer as “insufficient” saying the armed group had not unequivocally renounced the use of violence.

The story behind the news was that Sinn Fein, the political wing of the erstwhile Irish Republican Army, which waged its own decades-long armed struggle against Great Britain, had been “heavily involved” in ETA’s decision to put down its arms, “the culmination of years of debate, discussion and strategising among Basque activists”, according to Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader writing in the Guardian 6 September.

Why Spain won’t accept the ceasefire as is

Adams is optimistic and urges the Spanish government to seize the opportunity to enter into a political dialogue with ETA. The Spanish government is understandably reticent: experience, including the breaking of two previous ceasefires called by ETA in the past dozen years, argues against it; politics stays its hand too: the political right in Spain is not willing to cede an inch on the matter, and Spain’s ruling Socialists are in for a drubbing over the economy in next year’s elections.

ETA is on four different “designated terrorist” lists. Sinn Fein met with ETA “in the Basque country, sometimes in Belfast, and on a number of occasions in recent years Sinn Fein representatives travelled to Geneva for meetings with Basque representatives”. According to a strict interpretation of a recent US Supreme Court ruling, such activity may be illegal.

A sometime armed non-State actor. Photo by Alan Light

What is material support?

Holder v. the Humanitarian Law Project, a case that was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court in June 2010, argued that portions of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 were too vague. The Humanitarian Law Project argued that sitting down and talking to armed groups who are on the State Department’s terrorist lists could not be viewed as criminal activity. The Supreme Court held in July that providing “material support” to an armed group, which may include legal or other advice, frees up resources that the group may use to further its violent cause.

Correct. But in Sinn Fein’s case it may have been providing advice about a peace process that worked out relatively well. In other words, the advice seems to have been clearly to convince ETA that a ceasefire may be an important first step in a political process that could actually save lives.

Don’t criminalize dialogue

Other actors are also involved in furthering peace processes. Many NGOs need to talk to armed rebel groups in order to negotiate terms for humanitarian assistance of some sort or another. The International Red Cross springs to mind, as do countless others who operate in conflict zones around the world. Denying these groups the possibility of at least talking to armed groups because they appear on the designated terrorist group list seems short-sighted and counter-productive. Past US actions now also seem hypocritical. For years, the IRA raised funds openly in the USA to the chagrin of the British government.

What happens next? It is unlikely that Gerry Adams is going to be held up by Homeland Security officials at JFK airport the next time he visits the USA. But what exactly is the US government’s position on close ally Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s subtle dealings with the Taliban in that benighted country? What would happen if the US military found it expedient to open a dialogue with the Taliban itself? It strikes me that the US Supreme Court has painted itself into a very sticky legal corner.

Other links: Guardian, Swisster,