Original titel: Atonement
Author: Ian McEwan
"She [Briony] need not judge. There did not have to be a moral. She need only show separate minds, as alive as her own, struggling with the idea that other minds were equally alive. It wasn’t only wickedness and scheming that made people unhappy, it was confusion and misunderstanding; above all, it was the failure to grasp the simple truth that other people are as real as you. And only in a story could you enter these different minds and show how they had an equal value. That was the only moral a story need have."
"She [Briony’s mother] also knew that, ultimately, it was her own peace of mind she strove for; self-interest and kindness were best not separated."
"No one at Cambridge taught the benefits of good marching order. They revered the free, unruly spirits. The poets. But what did the poets know about survival? About surviving as a body of men."
"I’ll wait for you was elemental. It was the reason he had survived. It was the ordinary way of saying she would refuse all other men. Only you. Come back."
"It is quite impossible these days to assume anything about people’s educational level from the way they talk or dress or from their taste in music. Safest to treat everyone you meet as a distinguished intellectual."
"How can a novelist achieve atonement when, with her absolute power of deciding outcomes, she is also God? There is no one, no entity or higher form that she can appeal to, or be reconciled with, or that can forgive her. There is nothing outside her. In her imagination she has set the limits and the terms. No atonement for God, or novelists, even if they are atheists. It was always an impossible task, and that was precisely the point. The attempt was all."
"When I am dead, and the Marshalls are dead, and the novel is finally published, we will only exist as inventions. Briony will be as much of a fantasy as the lovers who shared a bed in Balham and enraged their landlady. No one will care what events and which individuals were misrepresented to make a novel. I know there's always a certain kind of reader who will be compelled to ask, But what really happened? The answer is simple: the lovers survive and flourish. As long as there is a single copy, a solitary typescript of my final draft, then my spontaneous, fortuitous sister and her medical prince survive to love."
Love and Freedom.
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
BCE "infla-burbujas"
El BCE presta casi 530.000 millones a la banca europea en la segunda subasta extraordinaria de liquidez a tres años.
Libremercado.com (29/02/2012)
Pablo (Facebook friend): El día en el que los Bancos Centrales desaparezcan y los bancos que tengan que quebrar quiebren, ese día creeré en el futuro de la especie humana.
Borjabrela: Bien dicho, Pablo, orgulloso de tenerte como FB friend. A finales de 2011 el BCE inyectó otros 490 mil millones de euros en los bancos europeos, de los cuales 480 mil millones se quedaron en las cuentas que los bancos tienen en el BCE, es decir, que no fluyeron a la economía con lo cual fueron totalmente inútiles. Ahora otros 500 mil millones que servirán para lo mismo, o sea, que los bancos hagan carry trade (pido prestado al BCE a 0.5%, presto a los Estados a 4-5%) y se recuperen.
El objetivo del BCE es doble: beneficiar a los bancos para que no quiebren (y sigan zombies) y que los bancos compren deuda pública (y los gobiernos puedan seguir gastando a mansalva). Sin embargo, no hay comida gratis, esta limpieza de los bancos la estamos pagando los ciudadanos, como contribuyentes (a través del interés de la deuda pública) y como consumidores (a través de inflación).
Los gobiernos y los bancos centrales NO son buenos para la economía de los ciudadanos.
Pablo (Facebook friend): Correcto Borja. Yo lo que no entiendo es por qué hay gente que se autodenomina liberal, pero que no quiere que lo llamen radical, que sacan a Milton Friedman en todas las discusiones sobre economía para argumentar que se puede llevar a cabo una política económica liberal interviniendo el mercado con dinero fiduciario, que es el claro ejemplo de competencia desleal y por lo tanto, de falta de libertad deliberada, y defendida a ultranza por los Estados... Yo no soy economista, pero no es difícil entender que si algunos bancos tienen un hermano mayor que les "tapa los huecos" que provoca su desmesurada actuación... nunca habrá "bancos honestos", ni medición del riesgo, ni nada, que es lo mínimo que se le pide a un banco. Al menos eso pienso yo
Love and Freedom.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
HBOS case
A bit more info on HBOS case. I lived in the UK through the summer of 2008 and I was outraged by this case because I was a taxpayer in Britain and I knew we would end up shouldering the burden (as it happened).
On the wake of the subprime mortgages HBOS was going under given the illiquidity inherent to the banking . Meanwhile, Lloyds (the most boring bank in the UK) was doing ok as it hadn’t gone into fancy financial toxic stuff.
But HBOS was Scottish, the UK PM Gordon Brown is Scottish and the Labour Party obtained lots of votes from Scotland. The government would be harmed by the demise of HBOS (as it had been with Northern Rock) and, as governments always do, they acted in their own interests: Gordon Brown pushed Lloyds’ CEO to acquire HBOS for political reasons, not for economical reasons.
Lloyds’ active shareholders didn’t want Lloyds to acquire HBOS: they kept appearing in the press. The independents in the press indicated that it was a very bad deal. It was apparent to everyone! HBOS’ own shareholders hadn’t taken up the rights issue in July 2008. It didn’t matter: Gordon Brown personally brokered the deal with Lloyds TSB. An official said: “It is not the role of a Prime Minister to tell a City institution what to do”.[that official was right, but the PM Brown intervened anyway].
The Lloyds TSB board have stated that merchant banks Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley were amongst the advisers recommending the takeover. [mmm wasn’t Morgan Stanley the underwriter that had been caught out? Banks have a too cosy relation with and too much influence on the governments. This will always happen: IMHO the solution is to curtail governments’ power.]
UK government assurance to save the banks and dispensation with respect to competition law and “don’t worry, public money is no one’s and the government will give it away” convinced just enough Lloyds shareholders to approve the takeover.
Result of the government’s strategy:
In late 2008 UK government loaned heaps of cash to Lloyds and ended up nationalising not only HBOS but the whole of Lloyds. [hey taxpayers’ money is free, isn’t it!]
From FT 2010: The dramatic scale of losses suffered by Lloyds Banking Group through the acquisition of HBOS was laid bare on Friday when the part-nationalised UK lender’s full-year results revealed it had made £30bn of provisions over the past two years on loans inherited from the deal.
Well done, Gordon. Thanks so much.
On the wake of the subprime mortgages HBOS was going under given the illiquidity inherent to the banking . Meanwhile, Lloyds (the most boring bank in the UK) was doing ok as it hadn’t gone into fancy financial toxic stuff.
But HBOS was Scottish, the UK PM Gordon Brown is Scottish and the Labour Party obtained lots of votes from Scotland. The government would be harmed by the demise of HBOS (as it had been with Northern Rock) and, as governments always do, they acted in their own interests: Gordon Brown pushed Lloyds’ CEO to acquire HBOS for political reasons, not for economical reasons.
Lloyds’ active shareholders didn’t want Lloyds to acquire HBOS: they kept appearing in the press. The independents in the press indicated that it was a very bad deal. It was apparent to everyone! HBOS’ own shareholders hadn’t taken up the rights issue in July 2008. It didn’t matter: Gordon Brown personally brokered the deal with Lloyds TSB. An official said: “It is not the role of a Prime Minister to tell a City institution what to do”.[that official was right, but the PM Brown intervened anyway].
The Lloyds TSB board have stated that merchant banks Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley were amongst the advisers recommending the takeover. [mmm wasn’t Morgan Stanley the underwriter that had been caught out? Banks have a too cosy relation with and too much influence on the governments. This will always happen: IMHO the solution is to curtail governments’ power.]
UK government assurance to save the banks and dispensation with respect to competition law and “don’t worry, public money is no one’s and the government will give it away” convinced just enough Lloyds shareholders to approve the takeover.
Result of the government’s strategy:
In late 2008 UK government loaned heaps of cash to Lloyds and ended up nationalising not only HBOS but the whole of Lloyds. [hey taxpayers’ money is free, isn’t it!]
From FT 2010: The dramatic scale of losses suffered by Lloyds Banking Group through the acquisition of HBOS was laid bare on Friday when the part-nationalised UK lender’s full-year results revealed it had made £30bn of provisions over the past two years on loans inherited from the deal.
Well done, Gordon. Thanks so much.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Facebook discussion on the BBC
Borjabrela: The only way ahead with the BBC (and any other state-funded media) is scrapping the TV licence, thank her for her services and wish her a better life.
STOP STATE INDOCTRINATION.
RandomSpaniard: Done. My email to these guys: "I write to inform you that I live in the year 2011 Anno Domini and was not aware there was a Common Era.
I will not be paying my TV licence until the BBC returns to the same time dimension I live in. The ...See more
Less dramatic than it sounds, given we don't own a TV or pay the licence anyway.
Borjabrela: Excellent!
Labour-leaning colleague: I wish there was a dislike button, as having travelled in other countries I thank god we have the BBC every time I flick a TV on switch. The state/establishment bias on the BBC is no worse than the corporate bias of the commercial media and it has been the the commercial media that has used wholesale mysogny, xenophobia and scientific illiteracy to debauch our culture these past forty years.
Borjabrela: I don't pay for the corporate bias of the commercial media. I pay for the bias of the BBC. You like the BBC, you pay for it. I don't like the BBC, I should not be made pay for it. Period.
Labour-leaning colleague: The BBC is democratically accountable: this sometimes means the wishes of the majority(those who want a counterweight in the form of state funded media) sometimes outweigh the minority (those who would not pay for it). The BBC is a good thing for society and we know this because people keep voting for it. All you have to do to get rid of it is elect a party with its removal on their manifesto. This democratic accountability is in stark contrast to the corporate media, where whilst I have never bought a Murdoch paper, the minority that do are considered sufficiently powerful to corrupt the political and law enforcement fabric of this country - something which directly affects me as a non-purchaser.
RandomSpaniard: LLC, nobody has ever been given a choice on the BBC so stop fantasising about democratic accountability. All the main parties have colluded to keep it place and not give voters a choice.
Labour-leaning colleague: They haven't colluded. If there was a strong move in public opinion against it you can bet it would appear on a manifesto. The conservatives in particular despise it - Thatcher hated the BBC, but recognised it would have been electoral suicide to touch it. Even when the establishment does feel brave enough to move against public opinion and attack the BBC (Hutton report) or after the tv faking scandals of a few years ago people still love the BBC. It is one of the core British institutions and a huge part of the nation's intellectual and cultural life.
Borjabrela: LLC, "democratically accountable" are two words used by authoritarian people who want to force unwilling individuals to fund their wishes (just like you). The same way that the fact that Hitler and Franco won polls didn't make them any more "democratic". What is "democratic" by the way? It is one of those words manipulated by socialists/authoritarians to deceive the population. Any time anyone uses the "democratic" argument is discredited in my opinion in the same way that you claim any time anyone uses the "nazi" argument is discredited.
Also I don't need a strong move in public opinion against the BBC for me to deem the BBC a despicable attack to my liberty and therefore for me to consider retaliation actions. The same way that the strong move in some countries to chop female gonads doesn't make this practice any more acceptable in my opinion. STOP STATE INDOCTRINATION still beholds.
It happens that individuals who are against the State are less organised and have less will to use the resorts of power offered by the State (ie., libertarians don't hold a grip in any political party like the unions do) or the mass-manipulation methods (like the liberals do with the BBC). This causes a bias in favour of the state in the governing elite. This does not indicate that my opinion is less valid.
Finally, it makes me laugh that socialist/authoritarians usually use the argument of "evil corporativism influencing the government and hence people's lives" against anti-statist individual-freedom advocates. Don't you guys realise that the main issues in that sentence are: 1, there is a government which can be used as a channel to dominate people's lives, so the solution is to limit government's power; and 2, corporativism is the result of no freedom of competition usually endorsed by the governments. People in power both in government and business collude, but it happens that Tesco/Times can't send me to prison whereas the government would send me to prison/fine me if I don't pay the BBC licence.
Love and Freedom.
STOP STATE INDOCTRINATION.
RandomSpaniard: Done. My email to these guys: "I write to inform you that I live in the year 2011 Anno Domini and was not aware there was a Common Era.
I will not be paying my TV licence until the BBC returns to the same time dimension I live in. The ...See more
Less dramatic than it sounds, given we don't own a TV or pay the licence anyway.
Borjabrela: Excellent!
Labour-leaning colleague: I wish there was a dislike button, as having travelled in other countries I thank god we have the BBC every time I flick a TV on switch. The state/establishment bias on the BBC is no worse than the corporate bias of the commercial media and it has been the the commercial media that has used wholesale mysogny, xenophobia and scientific illiteracy to debauch our culture these past forty years.
Borjabrela: I don't pay for the corporate bias of the commercial media. I pay for the bias of the BBC. You like the BBC, you pay for it. I don't like the BBC, I should not be made pay for it. Period.
Labour-leaning colleague: The BBC is democratically accountable: this sometimes means the wishes of the majority(those who want a counterweight in the form of state funded media) sometimes outweigh the minority (those who would not pay for it). The BBC is a good thing for society and we know this because people keep voting for it. All you have to do to get rid of it is elect a party with its removal on their manifesto. This democratic accountability is in stark contrast to the corporate media, where whilst I have never bought a Murdoch paper, the minority that do are considered sufficiently powerful to corrupt the political and law enforcement fabric of this country - something which directly affects me as a non-purchaser.
RandomSpaniard: LLC, nobody has ever been given a choice on the BBC so stop fantasising about democratic accountability. All the main parties have colluded to keep it place and not give voters a choice.
Labour-leaning colleague: They haven't colluded. If there was a strong move in public opinion against it you can bet it would appear on a manifesto. The conservatives in particular despise it - Thatcher hated the BBC, but recognised it would have been electoral suicide to touch it. Even when the establishment does feel brave enough to move against public opinion and attack the BBC (Hutton report) or after the tv faking scandals of a few years ago people still love the BBC. It is one of the core British institutions and a huge part of the nation's intellectual and cultural life.
Borjabrela: LLC, "democratically accountable" are two words used by authoritarian people who want to force unwilling individuals to fund their wishes (just like you). The same way that the fact that Hitler and Franco won polls didn't make them any more "democratic". What is "democratic" by the way? It is one of those words manipulated by socialists/authoritarians to deceive the population. Any time anyone uses the "democratic" argument is discredited in my opinion in the same way that you claim any time anyone uses the "nazi" argument is discredited.
Also I don't need a strong move in public opinion against the BBC for me to deem the BBC a despicable attack to my liberty and therefore for me to consider retaliation actions. The same way that the strong move in some countries to chop female gonads doesn't make this practice any more acceptable in my opinion. STOP STATE INDOCTRINATION still beholds.
It happens that individuals who are against the State are less organised and have less will to use the resorts of power offered by the State (ie., libertarians don't hold a grip in any political party like the unions do) or the mass-manipulation methods (like the liberals do with the BBC). This causes a bias in favour of the state in the governing elite. This does not indicate that my opinion is less valid.
Finally, it makes me laugh that socialist/authoritarians usually use the argument of "evil corporativism influencing the government and hence people's lives" against anti-statist individual-freedom advocates. Don't you guys realise that the main issues in that sentence are: 1, there is a government which can be used as a channel to dominate people's lives, so the solution is to limit government's power; and 2, corporativism is the result of no freedom of competition usually endorsed by the governments. People in power both in government and business collude, but it happens that Tesco/Times can't send me to prison whereas the government would send me to prison/fine me if I don't pay the BBC licence.
Love and Freedom.
Saturday, 23 October 2010
Huerta de Soto delivers 2010 Hayek Lecture at LSE
This year's Hayek Lecture at LSE will be delivered by the leading Austrian School economist Jesús Huerta de Soto, professor at the King Juan Carlos University of Spain.
The Hayek Lectures are organised by The Cobden Centre.
Date: Thursday 28 October 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm (doors open at 6pm)
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building, London School of Economics
Speaker: Professor Jesús Huerta de Soto
This event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis.
Read Daniel Hannan's mention of Huerta de Soto's on the Daily Telegraph.
You may already know that I am a proud member of the Libertarian Pulguitas Society, i.e., the group of Spanish libertarians living in London who met through the reading of Albert Esplugas's blog and who have monthly "quedadas" to conspire against the State. As already noted by my co-conspirator Random Spaniard, the members of the Libertarian Pulguitas Society will attend Huerta de Soto's lecture. Everyone is invited and we hope to convince you to join the libertarian movement.
Love and Freedom.
The Hayek Lectures are organised by The Cobden Centre.
Date: Thursday 28 October 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm (doors open at 6pm)
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building, London School of Economics
Speaker: Professor Jesús Huerta de Soto
This event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis.
Read Daniel Hannan's mention of Huerta de Soto's on the Daily Telegraph.
You may already know that I am a proud member of the Libertarian Pulguitas Society, i.e., the group of Spanish libertarians living in London who met through the reading of Albert Esplugas's blog and who have monthly "quedadas" to conspire against the State. As already noted by my co-conspirator Random Spaniard, the members of the Libertarian Pulguitas Society will attend Huerta de Soto's lecture. Everyone is invited and we hope to convince you to join the libertarian movement.
Love and Freedom.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
A glimpse of London: Monday
One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others.
Moliere
London is a great, funny city, the Spanish guy thought, when he saw two lesbians (one of them Chinese and the other one Caucasian) kissing each other farewell by the tube station while an Italo-Indian couple greeted their Eastern European friends at the queue of a club. But the Spanish guy didn't have time for thoughts, it was snowing and he was late for the theatre where a lovely English girl was already waiting for him.
Thus the other Monday the Spanish guy saw Martin Crimp's version of Moliere's The Misanthrope at the Comedy Theatre, starring Damian Lewis and Keira Knightley. Whilst he still preferred the original French play, he approved this English attempt to adapt Moliere's comedy of manners to the contemporary world.
Being as we still are human beings displaying our unmistakable, unchangeable flaws, it's no surprise that there is such a resemblance between the 17th century French aristocratic society and today's Western celebrity society. Both seem so penetrated by the hypocrisy, shallowness and vanity of talentless, base celebs made famous by the media that one doesn't have to be a harsh, idealistic fool like Alceste to become disillusioned and angry with the whole mankind.
Keira, by the way, was all shoulders and squared angles and, though she played her role correctly, left the Spanish guy a tad cold and disappointed. He realised that he was very happy with the little English girl that clung on to his arm.
Love and freedom.
Monday, 27 April 2009
City AM editor's reply to my letter
Allister Heath, editor of London morning paper City A.M., replied to the letter I emailed him on 26 March 2009 regarding the denationalisation of money.
From: allister.heath@cityam.com
To: Borjabrela
Date: 3 April 2009 19:22
Subject: RE: Comment to "Time running out for dollar dominance"
I am very familiar with Hayek’s IEA book. However, I much prefer the monetary alternative outlined in (for example) http://www.umsl.edu/~whitelh/tmi.html
The best explanation of the modern Austrian credit cycle theory is probably contained in http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/tam.htm
What I was trying to do was see whether SDRs could be turned into an alternative, sounder regime as a first step towards reform.
Thanks for reading City A.M.
Best wishes
Allister
I am very pleased with his reply. I have already ordered Roger Garrison's "Time and Money. The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure" via Amazon.
Love and freedom.
From: allister.heath@cityam.com
To: Borjabrela
Date: 3 April 2009 19:22
Subject: RE: Comment to "Time running out for dollar dominance"
I am very familiar with Hayek’s IEA book. However, I much prefer the monetary alternative outlined in (for example) http://www.umsl.edu/~whitelh/tmi.html
The best explanation of the modern Austrian credit cycle theory is probably contained in http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/tam.htm
What I was trying to do was see whether SDRs could be turned into an alternative, sounder regime as a first step towards reform.
Thanks for reading City A.M.
Best wishes
Allister
I am very pleased with his reply. I have already ordered Roger Garrison's "Time and Money. The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure" via Amazon.
Love and freedom.
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Why is Spain so corrupt? Ask El País
Economist's Charlemagne comments in his notebook an article published in the Spanish newspaper El País entitled "Why is there so much corruption in Spain?".
My friend A. told me once that he likes The Economist but gets annoyed at its little knowledge about Spain. This post by Charlemagne unfortunately supports his opinion.
To start with, Charlemagne bafflingly states that El País is Spain's best newspaper. On what base? Why does a fact-led magazine such as The Economist step into such muddled waters as judging what is better or worse? Wouldn't have been enough saying "best-sold general printed newspaper"? Apart from this, I don't understand how Charlemagne can praise so much a paper whose editorial opinion is opposite to The Economist's.
Second, I find it funny that a researcher who publishes in El País wonders why Spain is so corrupt. He should simply ask El País' owners! El País belongs to Prisa, a company that has made corruption its main method of expansion. Prisa is a media holding founded by Jesús de Polanco Gutierrez who managed it until his death. Prisa is politically and commercially linked to the Spanish socialist party PSOE leveraging on Polanco's personal friendship with the former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe González.
There are very dark cases in Prisa's enlargement and enrichment of its owners which leads me to accuse El País and Prisa of corruption. For example, the concession of the third private TV licence to Prisa's Canal+ TV station was possible by the explicit modification of the law to allow it to be pay-per-view.
Another infamous case called the Antenicidio illustrates the misuse of the political connections of Prisa to be allowed unlawful actions. In 1990 the radio station Antena3Radio takes over Prisa's radio station SER as the leader in Spain's radio spectrum. Polanco unlawfully bought Antena3Radio and then closed the latter incorporating its more that 100 stations to SER. Spain's High Court of Justice declared illegal the purchase and the closure of Antena3Radio but so far Prisa has not been made to comply with the Court's ruling.
Another example of the power exercised by El País and Prisa was the Judge Liaño case. The judge Gómez de Liaño opened a prosecution against Prisa's cable TV platform Sogecable in regards to the Canal+'s members' deposits which were diverted to Prisa's digital TV platform Canal Satélite. After the pressure applied by El País and Prisa on the government, PSOE and Spain's High Council of Justice, Justice Liaño was not able to carry on his prosecution, but he was prosecuted himself and sent to prison for prevarication. Justice Liaño was later pardonned by the People's Party government and re-integrated to its functions against the opinion of Prisa and PSOE. In 2008 the European Court of Human Rights stated that Justice Liaño had not been judged by an independent and unbiased court. But the damage was already done and Prisa escaped punishment again for its unlawful activities thanks to its media and corruption power.
There are lots of other examples of the corruption inducted by Prisa and El País, but another high-profile case was the merger in 2002 of Prisa's digital TV platform Canal Satélite with Telefónica's Via Digital. The merger agreement gave control of the merged platform Digital+ to Prisa, what was considered in Spain a victory of Polanco against the former Prime Minister José María Aznar of the People's Party, who had unsuccessfully attempted to curtail Prisa's power. The merger was allowed even when Digital+ would have (and indeed had) the monopoly on Spain's digital TV field; some feeble, temporary restrictions were imposed which Prisa was happy to accept since it was going to give them monopoly of the pay-per-view TV in Spain as well as sole broadcasting rights for all football games and many other entertainment, business, information, porn, gambling, and education TV channels and programs.
++++
In regards to the article's question, Why is there so much corruption in Spain?, well, because Spanish can be corrupt. And why can Spaniards be so corrupt? Because of the same reason any other nation's citizens can be corrupt, because some of them have power over other people that they can misuse and they will misuse it if needed to thrive in life: the use of any means for survival of itself and its offspring is the number 1 rule of Mother Nature to every living being, including humans. Bluntly, Spaniards and any other nation's citizens are corrupt because there is government and because governments are made of people, who in turn are living beings, not angels.
Solution: get rid of the government and devolve power over their own lives to the individuals.
Love and freedom.
My friend A. told me once that he likes The Economist but gets annoyed at its little knowledge about Spain. This post by Charlemagne unfortunately supports his opinion.
To start with, Charlemagne bafflingly states that El País is Spain's best newspaper. On what base? Why does a fact-led magazine such as The Economist step into such muddled waters as judging what is better or worse? Wouldn't have been enough saying "best-sold general printed newspaper"? Apart from this, I don't understand how Charlemagne can praise so much a paper whose editorial opinion is opposite to The Economist's.
Second, I find it funny that a researcher who publishes in El País wonders why Spain is so corrupt. He should simply ask El País' owners! El País belongs to Prisa, a company that has made corruption its main method of expansion. Prisa is a media holding founded by Jesús de Polanco Gutierrez who managed it until his death. Prisa is politically and commercially linked to the Spanish socialist party PSOE leveraging on Polanco's personal friendship with the former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe González.
There are very dark cases in Prisa's enlargement and enrichment of its owners which leads me to accuse El País and Prisa of corruption. For example, the concession of the third private TV licence to Prisa's Canal+ TV station was possible by the explicit modification of the law to allow it to be pay-per-view.
Another infamous case called the Antenicidio illustrates the misuse of the political connections of Prisa to be allowed unlawful actions. In 1990 the radio station Antena3Radio takes over Prisa's radio station SER as the leader in Spain's radio spectrum. Polanco unlawfully bought Antena3Radio and then closed the latter incorporating its more that 100 stations to SER. Spain's High Court of Justice declared illegal the purchase and the closure of Antena3Radio but so far Prisa has not been made to comply with the Court's ruling.
Another example of the power exercised by El País and Prisa was the Judge Liaño case. The judge Gómez de Liaño opened a prosecution against Prisa's cable TV platform Sogecable in regards to the Canal+'s members' deposits which were diverted to Prisa's digital TV platform Canal Satélite. After the pressure applied by El País and Prisa on the government, PSOE and Spain's High Council of Justice, Justice Liaño was not able to carry on his prosecution, but he was prosecuted himself and sent to prison for prevarication. Justice Liaño was later pardonned by the People's Party government and re-integrated to its functions against the opinion of Prisa and PSOE. In 2008 the European Court of Human Rights stated that Justice Liaño had not been judged by an independent and unbiased court. But the damage was already done and Prisa escaped punishment again for its unlawful activities thanks to its media and corruption power.
There are lots of other examples of the corruption inducted by Prisa and El País, but another high-profile case was the merger in 2002 of Prisa's digital TV platform Canal Satélite with Telefónica's Via Digital. The merger agreement gave control of the merged platform Digital+ to Prisa, what was considered in Spain a victory of Polanco against the former Prime Minister José María Aznar of the People's Party, who had unsuccessfully attempted to curtail Prisa's power. The merger was allowed even when Digital+ would have (and indeed had) the monopoly on Spain's digital TV field; some feeble, temporary restrictions were imposed which Prisa was happy to accept since it was going to give them monopoly of the pay-per-view TV in Spain as well as sole broadcasting rights for all football games and many other entertainment, business, information, porn, gambling, and education TV channels and programs.
++++
In regards to the article's question, Why is there so much corruption in Spain?, well, because Spanish can be corrupt. And why can Spaniards be so corrupt? Because of the same reason any other nation's citizens can be corrupt, because some of them have power over other people that they can misuse and they will misuse it if needed to thrive in life: the use of any means for survival of itself and its offspring is the number 1 rule of Mother Nature to every living being, including humans. Bluntly, Spaniards and any other nation's citizens are corrupt because there is government and because governments are made of people, who in turn are living beings, not angels.
Solution: get rid of the government and devolve power over their own lives to the individuals.
Love and freedom.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Letter to City AM's Editor
From: Borjabrela
To: allister.heath@cityam.com
Date: 26 March 2009 13:33
Subject: Comment to "Time running out for dollar dominance"
Dear Allister,
I have the pleasure to follow your letter every weekday morning in City A.M.: I learn very much from it so many thanks.
Today's Editor's Letter gave a good solution for the avoidance of the periodical credit bubbles and crunches. Your solution openly addresses the main cause of these credit cycles, i.e., the current money supply structure with fractional reserves and state-controlled currency.
In the current money supply structure national governments or central banks (i.e. the State) have official control of the currencies, which subjects the currency supply and value to the government's whims. At the same time, the fractional reserves give any non-central bank the power to effectively create money with little control of the State. This structure results in a situation of unaccountability: the non-central banks blame the central bank for its decisions, and the central banks blame the non-central banks for their lack of responsibility. As a Spanish saying goes, neither one nor the other and the house is left dirty. At the end the ones who lose are the citizens who always have to pay to clean up the mess with unemployment, inflation and currency depreciation (an outright robbery by the government).
Your solution is creating a super-currency, controlled by no single nation (you suggest the Bank of International Settlements), whose value fluctuated depending on the underlying price of the basket of commodities to which they would be pegged. "A proper store of value, not a fiat currency".
In my opinion, your solution goes in the right direction as it attempts to stripe the governments of power over money; however, it isn't the best solution. I have also read many other suggestions and recommendations, but no one seems to remember that the optimal solution was already proposed by Friedrich Hayek in "Denationalisation of Money" (1976): free market of currencies and financial operations, whereby anyone (even the government!) can set up their own currency and financial operations and compete in equal conditions for the favour of the Market.
As the Market is the most efficient way to distribute resources, it is time to make the Market the only controller of money, which is its main resource. This way the Market will be accountable for its mistakes regarding credit as it already does for almost anything other type of mistakes. This way the States will have it more difficult to spoil the economy again.
It is high time someone remembers Hayek, who gave the best explanation of the economic and financial cycles.
Love and freedom.
To: allister.heath@cityam.com
Date: 26 March 2009 13:33
Subject: Comment to "Time running out for dollar dominance"
Dear Allister,
I have the pleasure to follow your letter every weekday morning in City A.M.: I learn very much from it so many thanks.
Today's Editor's Letter gave a good solution for the avoidance of the periodical credit bubbles and crunches. Your solution openly addresses the main cause of these credit cycles, i.e., the current money supply structure with fractional reserves and state-controlled currency.
In the current money supply structure national governments or central banks (i.e. the State) have official control of the currencies, which subjects the currency supply and value to the government's whims. At the same time, the fractional reserves give any non-central bank the power to effectively create money with little control of the State. This structure results in a situation of unaccountability: the non-central banks blame the central bank for its decisions, and the central banks blame the non-central banks for their lack of responsibility. As a Spanish saying goes, neither one nor the other and the house is left dirty. At the end the ones who lose are the citizens who always have to pay to clean up the mess with unemployment, inflation and currency depreciation (an outright robbery by the government).
Your solution is creating a super-currency, controlled by no single nation (you suggest the Bank of International Settlements), whose value fluctuated depending on the underlying price of the basket of commodities to which they would be pegged. "A proper store of value, not a fiat currency".
In my opinion, your solution goes in the right direction as it attempts to stripe the governments of power over money; however, it isn't the best solution. I have also read many other suggestions and recommendations, but no one seems to remember that the optimal solution was already proposed by Friedrich Hayek in "Denationalisation of Money" (1976): free market of currencies and financial operations, whereby anyone (even the government!) can set up their own currency and financial operations and compete in equal conditions for the favour of the Market.
As the Market is the most efficient way to distribute resources, it is time to make the Market the only controller of money, which is its main resource. This way the Market will be accountable for its mistakes regarding credit as it already does for almost anything other type of mistakes. This way the States will have it more difficult to spoil the economy again.
It is high time someone remembers Hayek, who gave the best explanation of the economic and financial cycles.
Love and freedom.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Talk on free-market security
Albert Esplugas invited a couple of Spanish-Londoner acquantainces to attend one of the libertarian talks that French libertarian Christian Michel hosts in his own flat. I was lucky to be within the group of invitees so I promptly (and punctually!) showed up at this "home-made" debate.
Last Friday's guest speaker was Dr Tim Evans, President of the Libertarian Alliance, the UK’s radical civil liberties think tank. Tim Evans has a PhD from the London School of Economics and has worked for the Foundation for Defence Studies, for Slovakia's Prime Minister’s Policy Unit, for the Independent Healthcare Association in London and for the Centre for the New Europe, the leading European public policy think tank. Impressive career.
The evening's debate was about security and law enforcement in a free market. Tim Evan's talk consisted of showing how the private sector is already fulfilling an important role in the provision of defence, police, prisons, administration of justice, and other security-related functions.
As the introductory email from Christian Michel read:
Tim postulated that the private sector has deployed the security and justice functions in the past, but that the state has taken over not because of an optimisation of the cost-benefit calculation but because of both the corporativism and the government's pursuit of all-mighty power. These two forces are recurrent behind the statism. The damage of the corporativism is clearly explained by Milton Friedman in Free to Choose. The suppliers who are already in the business would push to increase the barriers to entry and to do that they will convince the government to regulate the activities in such a way that the current suppliers are the only ones that can perform such business; those suppliers would soon dictate the regulations themselves either by lobbying or directly forming the regulatory councils. All this is always allegedly done for the general interest, but always end up benefiting the particular interests. This is obviously NOT free market but on the contrary the main obstacles for the free market.
Tim Evans claimed that 150 years of libertarian literature on this topic of free market security and law enforcement was being fully ignored by academics in the theoretical debate. Libertarians should pay more attention to this topic of security and justice, which is one of the main objections that a non-libertarian raises against free-marketeers. If the libertarians find appropriate response and approach to these objections, lots of people who are now sceptical of the free-market would embrace libertarian ideas.
The after-talk debate raised issues around how to handle terrorism, foreign attacks, state-led agressions, or petty crime in a region with no central government-led security. All in all a very interesting evening which I wish can be repeated soon.
Love and freedom.
Last Friday's guest speaker was Dr Tim Evans, President of the Libertarian Alliance, the UK’s radical civil liberties think tank. Tim Evans has a PhD from the London School of Economics and has worked for the Foundation for Defence Studies, for Slovakia's Prime Minister’s Policy Unit, for the Independent Healthcare Association in London and for the Centre for the New Europe, the leading European public policy think tank. Impressive career.
The evening's debate was about security and law enforcement in a free market. Tim Evan's talk consisted of showing how the private sector is already fulfilling an important role in the provision of defence, police, prisons, administration of justice, and other security-related functions.
As the introductory email from Christian Michel read:
The figures are startling. For every policeman in the UK, there are more than two private security guards. They patrol stores, shopping malls, office buildings and the thousand ‘gated communities’ in the country (in the US 6% of the population live in these enclaves with their own police). Non-state companies operate an increasing number of prisons in England and Wales. And as the country’s publicly funded court system fails to keep up with demand, ever more people are seeking legal recourse through a range of private arbitration and mediation services. Certainly, when I was in business, I don’t think I ever signed a contract that didn’t call for private arbitration.
There is more. A large number of defence-related services has been privatised or contracted-out to the private sector. Under rubrics of ‘greater competition’, ‘efficiency’ and ‘value for money’, much of Royal Navy fleet servicing, logistical support, personnel training and even, bewilderingly, warship provision is now reliant upon private sector capital.
What’s going on here? For-profit prisons? Gunboats owned by investment companies?? The media haven’t really seized on the issue; yet the state signing away swathes of its core functions must have long-term consequences on the social and political foundation of the country. How should we react to these developments? What should we watch for in the years ahead?
Tim postulated that the private sector has deployed the security and justice functions in the past, but that the state has taken over not because of an optimisation of the cost-benefit calculation but because of both the corporativism and the government's pursuit of all-mighty power. These two forces are recurrent behind the statism. The damage of the corporativism is clearly explained by Milton Friedman in Free to Choose. The suppliers who are already in the business would push to increase the barriers to entry and to do that they will convince the government to regulate the activities in such a way that the current suppliers are the only ones that can perform such business; those suppliers would soon dictate the regulations themselves either by lobbying or directly forming the regulatory councils. All this is always allegedly done for the general interest, but always end up benefiting the particular interests. This is obviously NOT free market but on the contrary the main obstacles for the free market.
Tim Evans claimed that 150 years of libertarian literature on this topic of free market security and law enforcement was being fully ignored by academics in the theoretical debate. Libertarians should pay more attention to this topic of security and justice, which is one of the main objections that a non-libertarian raises against free-marketeers. If the libertarians find appropriate response and approach to these objections, lots of people who are now sceptical of the free-market would embrace libertarian ideas.
The after-talk debate raised issues around how to handle terrorism, foreign attacks, state-led agressions, or petty crime in a region with no central government-led security. All in all a very interesting evening which I wish can be repeated soon.
Love and freedom.
Friday, 20 March 2009
In search of a libertarian rethoric
We are going to behave like progressive Conservatives, pursuing our aims of a fairer society, an opportunity society, a safer society and a greener society in all that we do. But we will pursue these progressive aims through Conservative means - including proper control of public spending.
David Cameron, Telegraph.com (20/03/2009)
Following my post En busca de una retórica liberal, I noted David Cameron's latest comments in the Telegraph.com regarding Tories' failure to pledge to maintain the tax band rate for the UK's richest.
Cameron is mastering the art of rethoric that Labour politicians around the world are so expert at. "Progressive Conservatism"... Does anyone know what that means? Apparently it means agreeing to achieve "progressive aims through Conservative means". But Cameron does not say what aims are progressive, what means are Conservative and on what base you may claim that.
Instead, I am afraid that Cameron is acquiring not only the manners but also the ideas of the Labour Party such as raising tax rates: hence where are the "Conservative means"?
I understand that Conservative ideology does not equal Libertarian ideology and I know that, at the end of the day, the only aims and means all political parties seem to agree with is to grab power at any cost, retain it by any means and enlarge the government's and the party's power as much as possible at the expense of the citizens.
Should Libertarians follow the mainstream political parties' styles in order to reach power? Should we do it even if that means loosening our principles and radical (of root) propositions, just like Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem, and other ex-commies parties have done?
This is one of the debates I am more interested at, i.e., what is more important for you: principles to rule or power to rule?
Love and freedom.
Friday, 13 March 2009
British jobs for British workers??
From: Borjabrela
Sent: Fri 13/02/2009 15:25
To: Work colleagues
Subject: I was wondering
I was wondering:
Do you agree with the statement: "British jobs for British workers", and do you agree with last week's strikes?
+++
From: Cheeky work colleague
Sent: Fri 13/02/2009 15:28
Subject: I was wondering
Anything to stop all those lazy Spanish who seem to be popping up all over the place ;)
+++
From: A motorhead work colleague
Sent: Fri 13/02/2009 15:32
Subject: I was wondering
Here here to what [our cheeky colleague] said ;). Seriously tho, can't comment on the strikes cos I have no idea what they were about. As for the jobs, there's a duty for a government to support its economy by creating - and making available - as many jobs as it can for its people, within reason. Equally the capitalist in me screams "no! Save as much money as you can! Use cheap foreign labour!".
Gut feeling - it is a bit frustrating to see loads of benefit frauds when there are immigrants doing so much manual labour.
+++
From: Cheeky work colleague behaving as the Oxford-educated man he is
Sent: Fri 13/02/2009 15:28
Subject: I was wondering
My understanding of the strikes is that a company had hired a foreign third party to build something/provide some service, and the third party had hired predominantly foreign workers to complete the work, which went down badly with the UK employees of the company, resulting in the strike.
I guess in the current climate there is a bit of a "protect your own interests" mentality, although X [our motorhead work colleague] makes a good point about the cost - if foreign workers are cheaper then it's in the company's best interests to use them, especially with the state of the economy as it is.
As far as the statement "British jobs for British workers" - I'm not sure I agree with the idea of discriminating against employing someone based on their nationality. I like to think that if two people are applying for a job then the job should go to the one of them that is best-suited to the requirements. In this case, you could even argue the foreign workers are better suited, since they will speak the same language as their superiors in the foreign third party, come from the same culture etc etc.
However, based on the media reports, there might have been a case of discrimination on the part of the third party (ie they were hiring foreign workers even where they were less suitable). If this is the case (and I don't know anything about the accuracy of the reports) then I can perfectly understand the feelings of the workers and would probably support the strike action - the idea of non-discrimination has to work both ways.
+++
I have not yet received a reply from our labour-leaning Blackburn work colleague, whose opinion I am very keen to learn.
Love and freedom.
Sent: Fri 13/02/2009 15:25
To: Work colleagues
Subject: I was wondering
I was wondering:
Do you agree with the statement: "British jobs for British workers", and do you agree with last week's strikes?
+++
From: Cheeky work colleague
Sent: Fri 13/02/2009 15:28
Subject: I was wondering
Anything to stop all those lazy Spanish who seem to be popping up all over the place ;)
+++
From: A motorhead work colleague
Sent: Fri 13/02/2009 15:32
Subject: I was wondering
Here here to what [our cheeky colleague] said ;). Seriously tho, can't comment on the strikes cos I have no idea what they were about. As for the jobs, there's a duty for a government to support its economy by creating - and making available - as many jobs as it can for its people, within reason. Equally the capitalist in me screams "no! Save as much money as you can! Use cheap foreign labour!".
Gut feeling - it is a bit frustrating to see loads of benefit frauds when there are immigrants doing so much manual labour.
+++
From: Cheeky work colleague behaving as the Oxford-educated man he is
Sent: Fri 13/02/2009 15:28
Subject: I was wondering
My understanding of the strikes is that a company had hired a foreign third party to build something/provide some service, and the third party had hired predominantly foreign workers to complete the work, which went down badly with the UK employees of the company, resulting in the strike.
I guess in the current climate there is a bit of a "protect your own interests" mentality, although X [our motorhead work colleague] makes a good point about the cost - if foreign workers are cheaper then it's in the company's best interests to use them, especially with the state of the economy as it is.
As far as the statement "British jobs for British workers" - I'm not sure I agree with the idea of discriminating against employing someone based on their nationality. I like to think that if two people are applying for a job then the job should go to the one of them that is best-suited to the requirements. In this case, you could even argue the foreign workers are better suited, since they will speak the same language as their superiors in the foreign third party, come from the same culture etc etc.
However, based on the media reports, there might have been a case of discrimination on the part of the third party (ie they were hiring foreign workers even where they were less suitable). If this is the case (and I don't know anything about the accuracy of the reports) then I can perfectly understand the feelings of the workers and would probably support the strike action - the idea of non-discrimination has to work both ways.
+++
I have not yet received a reply from our labour-leaning Blackburn work colleague, whose opinion I am very keen to learn.
Love and freedom.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Liverpool beats Real Madrid in Champions' League
From: Borjabrela
Sent: Wed 11/03/2009 09:32
To: Liverpool fan from work
Subject: Liverpool win
Congrats, dude. Fair and square win. I told you Liverpool was going to beat Real Madrid, though I didn't think that Madrid's performance was going to be so embarrassing. We have a problem with Champions League's quarter-finals...
+++
From: Liverpool fan from work
Sent: Wed 11/03/2009 10:06
Subject: RE: Liverpool win
Cheers mate,
Thought you were a little unlucky with the refereeing decisions - both the first two goals could have been disallowed. That said, we could have been 3 or 4 up by that time if it hadn't been for Casillas playing a blinder. It's not often the goalie on the end of a 4-0 defeat is the best player on the pitch!
Thought your defence was a bit ropey though - Pepe didn't look good at all, and Cannavaro is definitely looking a bit old now. I like Ramos though - I'd be happy for Rafa to buy him in the summer!
Hopefully you can pull it together now and catch Barcelona - I'm a bit bored of everyone going on about how good they are...
+++
From: Borjabrela
Sent: 11 March 2009 10:06
To: Liverpool fan from work
Subject: RE: Liverpool win
We are just 6 points behind Barcelona with one game to play against them, so that's not that much difference for how good they are supposed to be and how badly we are doing it. Everything could still happen.
The problems in Madrid are deeper.
First, we just came out of a disastrously stewardship by a corrupt president who poached the elections and should be in court.
Second, the administration currently is on hold until elections are held again in July (in my opinion they should have been held asap, so we would have a properly elected president already with time to hire players for next year).
Third, the main power in Madrid is Raúl but he is very old and limits the progress of Madrid. He was the best forward in the world in 2001/2 and I think he should have been given the Gold Ball back then, but now he is not fit enough for the Champions' League and that is why we have not made semi-finals since Zidane retired. His opinion makes coaches be fired (Bernard Schuster) and players not hired (David Villa). Although I am a supporter of his courage and determination, I admit that he is dragging Madrid down because (and I am very sorry to say this) he is not Di Stefano (in my opinion the best player in history, though he doesn't have World Cups) and he is not Santiago Bernabéu (the best president in Madrid's history).
Fourth, our current squad is very feeble and the players are not worthy of Madrid. Robben is great, but made of glass. Guti is great, but a prima-donna (and Real Madrid requires warriors who die for the privilege of wearing Madrid's shirt... such as Raúl). Cannavaro is an old hole in the defence. Pepe is a waste of money. Higuain, Heinze, and etc. are good, but Villa should be the number 9 in Madrid. Diarrá cannot replace Makelele or Chendo. Van Nistelroy is injured and old. The best player of all of them, and the best goalkeeper in the world is San Casillas (which does not help if you want to score goals to win games!).
The biggest surprise in La Liga is how Madrid has been able to win the last 2 Ligas with such a sorry team...
+++
Love and freedom.
Sent: Wed 11/03/2009 09:32
To: Liverpool fan from work
Subject: Liverpool win
Congrats, dude. Fair and square win. I told you Liverpool was going to beat Real Madrid, though I didn't think that Madrid's performance was going to be so embarrassing. We have a problem with Champions League's quarter-finals...
+++
From: Liverpool fan from work
Sent: Wed 11/03/2009 10:06
Subject: RE: Liverpool win
Cheers mate,
Thought you were a little unlucky with the refereeing decisions - both the first two goals could have been disallowed. That said, we could have been 3 or 4 up by that time if it hadn't been for Casillas playing a blinder. It's not often the goalie on the end of a 4-0 defeat is the best player on the pitch!
Thought your defence was a bit ropey though - Pepe didn't look good at all, and Cannavaro is definitely looking a bit old now. I like Ramos though - I'd be happy for Rafa to buy him in the summer!
Hopefully you can pull it together now and catch Barcelona - I'm a bit bored of everyone going on about how good they are...
+++
From: Borjabrela
Sent: 11 March 2009 10:06
To: Liverpool fan from work
Subject: RE: Liverpool win
We are just 6 points behind Barcelona with one game to play against them, so that's not that much difference for how good they are supposed to be and how badly we are doing it. Everything could still happen.
The problems in Madrid are deeper.
First, we just came out of a disastrously stewardship by a corrupt president who poached the elections and should be in court.
Second, the administration currently is on hold until elections are held again in July (in my opinion they should have been held asap, so we would have a properly elected president already with time to hire players for next year).
Third, the main power in Madrid is Raúl but he is very old and limits the progress of Madrid. He was the best forward in the world in 2001/2 and I think he should have been given the Gold Ball back then, but now he is not fit enough for the Champions' League and that is why we have not made semi-finals since Zidane retired. His opinion makes coaches be fired (Bernard Schuster) and players not hired (David Villa). Although I am a supporter of his courage and determination, I admit that he is dragging Madrid down because (and I am very sorry to say this) he is not Di Stefano (in my opinion the best player in history, though he doesn't have World Cups) and he is not Santiago Bernabéu (the best president in Madrid's history).
Fourth, our current squad is very feeble and the players are not worthy of Madrid. Robben is great, but made of glass. Guti is great, but a prima-donna (and Real Madrid requires warriors who die for the privilege of wearing Madrid's shirt... such as Raúl). Cannavaro is an old hole in the defence. Pepe is a waste of money. Higuain, Heinze, and etc. are good, but Villa should be the number 9 in Madrid. Diarrá cannot replace Makelele or Chendo. Van Nistelroy is injured and old. The best player of all of them, and the best goalkeeper in the world is San Casillas (which does not help if you want to score goals to win games!).
The biggest surprise in La Liga is how Madrid has been able to win the last 2 Ligas with such a sorry team...
+++
Love and freedom.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Burns night
Last Saturday my friend D. invited me to a Burns night at his London flat to celebrate Scotland's national day. A Burns night is a celebration of the birthday of the Scottish poet Robert Burns and it is usually organised around a dinner.
Now that I have been documenting about Burns nights, I realised that D. acted as a perfect host and followed every step of this traditional supper.
Wearing his kilt he welcomed the guests and introduced them to one another so everyone felt at ease. The table was readily laid and everyone sat alternating sexes and preventing diners sitting next to known people. D. opened the event by mentioning the reason why we were celebrating the dinner (Burns' day) and the purpose of the gathering (raising money for the charity Hazel's Footprints), before one of the Scots recited the Selkirk Grace:
Some hae meat and canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.
Some bagpipes began to whistle in the background as D. carried a large plate with the haggis from the kitchen. The haggis is a traditional Scottish dish which consists in sheep bowels stuffed with sheep's pluck minced with onion, oatmeal, spices, and salt, all boiled for about three hours and usually presented with neeps (mashed turnip) and tatties (mashed potatoes). Our supper menu was completed with a rich pudding made of porridge, double whipped cream and blueberries, watered with Scotch whisky and honey!
D. recited the Address To a Haggis by Burns while theatrically carving the haggis. Then amid the laughs of the guests, the haggis was given out and eaten (although some girls stared at it, sighed and rolled their eyes and had to be helped by their male companions, ay!).
During dinner the Scots read out some poems by Burns, and a threesome of South Africans sang some nursery songs in English and Afrikaans. D. had asked me to read out a Spanish poem. I thought about choosing one of Gustavo Adolfo Bécquer's Rhymes, since Robert Burns is considered the first Romantic (or pre-Romantic) Scottish poet and Bécquer the most important Spanish Romantic poet. However, I finally selected Pablo Neruda's Poema XX from 20 love poems and a desperate song and translated it into (modern) English so everyone in the table could understand it. It was a success: a deep silence welcomed my voice reading one of the most beautiful poems in Spanish and I could see one or two hastily-swept tears when I looked around the table as I finished the poem.
Please sit back, feel the silence and share with us the Spanish and the English versions of Pablo Neruda's Poema XX:
Love and freedom.
Now that I have been documenting about Burns nights, I realised that D. acted as a perfect host and followed every step of this traditional supper.
Wearing his kilt he welcomed the guests and introduced them to one another so everyone felt at ease. The table was readily laid and everyone sat alternating sexes and preventing diners sitting next to known people. D. opened the event by mentioning the reason why we were celebrating the dinner (Burns' day) and the purpose of the gathering (raising money for the charity Hazel's Footprints), before one of the Scots recited the Selkirk Grace:
Some hae meat and canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.
Some bagpipes began to whistle in the background as D. carried a large plate with the haggis from the kitchen. The haggis is a traditional Scottish dish which consists in sheep bowels stuffed with sheep's pluck minced with onion, oatmeal, spices, and salt, all boiled for about three hours and usually presented with neeps (mashed turnip) and tatties (mashed potatoes). Our supper menu was completed with a rich pudding made of porridge, double whipped cream and blueberries, watered with Scotch whisky and honey!
D. recited the Address To a Haggis by Burns while theatrically carving the haggis. Then amid the laughs of the guests, the haggis was given out and eaten (although some girls stared at it, sighed and rolled their eyes and had to be helped by their male companions, ay!).
During dinner the Scots read out some poems by Burns, and a threesome of South Africans sang some nursery songs in English and Afrikaans. D. had asked me to read out a Spanish poem. I thought about choosing one of Gustavo Adolfo Bécquer's Rhymes, since Robert Burns is considered the first Romantic (or pre-Romantic) Scottish poet and Bécquer the most important Spanish Romantic poet. However, I finally selected Pablo Neruda's Poema XX from 20 love poems and a desperate song and translated it into (modern) English so everyone in the table could understand it. It was a success: a deep silence welcomed my voice reading one of the most beautiful poems in Spanish and I could see one or two hastily-swept tears when I looked around the table as I finished the poem.
Please sit back, feel the silence and share with us the Spanish and the English versions of Pablo Neruda's Poema XX:
Puedo escribir los versos más tristes está noche.
Escribir, por ejemplo: «La noche esta estrellada,
y tiritan, azules, los astros, a lo lejos».
El viento de la noche gira en el cielo y canta.
Puedo escribir los versos más tristes esta noche.
Yo la quise, y a veces ella también me quiso.
En las noches como ésta la tuve entre mis brazos.
La besé tantas veces bajo el cielo infinito.
Ella me quiso, a veces yo también la quería.
Cómo no haber amado sus grandes ojos fijos.
Puedo escribir los versos más tristes esta noche.
Pensar que no la tengo. Sentir que la he perdido.
Oír la noche inmensa, más inmensa sin ella.
Y el verso cae al alma como al pasto el rocío.
Qué importa que mi amor no pudiera guardarla.
La noche está estrellada y ella no está conmigo.
Eso es todo. A lo lejos alguien canta. A lo lejos.
Mi alma no se contenta con haberla perdido.
Como para acercarla mi mirada la busca.
Mi corazón la busca, y ella no está conmigo.
La misma noche que hace blanquear los mismos árboles.
Nosotros, los de entonces, ya no somos los mismos.
Ya no la quiero, es cierto, pero cuánto la quise.
Mi voz buscaba el viento para tocar su oído.
De otro. Será de otro. Como antes de mis besos.
Su voz, su cuerpo claro. Sus ojos infinitos.
Ya no la quiero, es cierto, pero tal vez la quiero.
Es tan corto el amor, y es tan largo el olvido.
Porque en noches como esta la tuve entre mis brazos,
mi alma no se contenta con haberla perdido.
Aunque éste sea el último dolor que ella me causa,
y éstos sean los últimos versos que yo le escribo.
Pablo Neruda
Poem XX (I could write the saddest verses tonight.)
I could write the saddest verses tonight.
Write, for example: "The night is full of stars,
and the stars shiver, blue, in the distance".
The night wind revolves in the sky and sings.
I could write the saddest verses tonight.
I loved her, and sometimes she loved me too.
In nights like this I held her in my arms.
I kissed her so many times under the boundless sky.
She loved me, sometimes I loved her too.
How could one not have loved her great still eyes.
I could write the saddest verses tonight.
To think that I do not have her. To feel that I have lost her.
To hear the immense night, even more immense without her.
And the verse sinks in the soul as dew on the pasture.
What matters that my love could not keep her.
The night is full of stars and she is not with me.
That is all. Far away someone is singing. Far away.
My soul is not happy with having lost her.
As though to bring her closer my eyes search for her.
My heart searches for her, and she is not with me.
The same night that whitens the same trees.
We, those of that time, are no longer the same.
I no longer love her, that is true, but how much I loved her.
My voice searched the wind to touch her ear.
Another's. She may belong to another. As she was of my kisses before.
Her voice, her light body. Her boundless eyes.
I no longer love her, that is true, but maybe I love her.
Love lasts so short, and forgetting takes so long.
Because in nights like this I held her in my arms,
my soul is not happy with having lost her.
Even though this is the last pain that she makes me suffer,
And these are the last verses I write for her.
Love and freedom.
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Top 20 Bushisms
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions.
George W. Bush
You may say anything you want about the U.S. ex-president George W. Bush, but you can't deny we had fun with his Bushisms. Here you have a list of the "Top 20 gaffes by outgoing president George W Bush".
We libertarians are profoundly grateful to George W Bush, who has shown in his eight years of watch how useless the government is.
It's very to "hacer leña del árbol caído", but mind that nowadays The Times belongs ultimately to News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Love and freedom.
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Wealthy men give women more orgasms
"Women’s orgasm frequency increases with the income of their partner," said Dr Thomas Pollet, the Newcastle University psychologist behind the research.
He believes the phenomenon is an “evolutionary adaptation” that is hard-wired into women, driving them to select men on the basis of their perceived quality.
Jonathan Leake, Timesonline.co.uk (18/01/2009)
According to the article, this "fits into a wider body of research known as evolutionary psychology which suggests that both men and women are genetically predisposed to ruthlessly exploit each other to achieve the best chances of survival for their genes".
Love and freedom.
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Meeting with Albert Esplugas
Last Sunday I had the pleasure to meet Albert Esplugas, proud blogger of RedLiberal. We had an interesting conversation over a drink at an elegant pub in Bayswater, London.
Albert is a tall, slender, young professional guy with a geeky hint in his talk who tries to write an average of two posts a day in his blog. Having born in Barcelona and sharing nowadays a life in London with his girlfriend, Albert loves chatting about philosophy and tasting new cocktails: he is afraid of neither being wrong or facing a new discovery. We talked about the metaphysics of the blog-sphere and about libertarian initiatives. I must admit that those two hours flew by and I am grateful that he accepted meeting a complete stranger which happened to be one of his readers.
Albert is currently having a great discussion with Citoyen about the general idea of redistribution of resources. In this post, they argue about the re-distribution of human organs. As I comment in his post:
Love and freedom.
Albert is a tall, slender, young professional guy with a geeky hint in his talk who tries to write an average of two posts a day in his blog. Having born in Barcelona and sharing nowadays a life in London with his girlfriend, Albert loves chatting about philosophy and tasting new cocktails: he is afraid of neither being wrong or facing a new discovery. We talked about the metaphysics of the blog-sphere and about libertarian initiatives. I must admit that those two hours flew by and I am grateful that he accepted meeting a complete stranger which happened to be one of his readers.
Albert is currently having a great discussion with Citoyen about the general idea of redistribution of resources. In this post, they argue about the re-distribution of human organs. As I comment in his post:
Absorbing, bright debate. Well-mannered, intelligent discussions like this one refresh the hopes set on the potential of the blog-sphere. As I told you verbally, chapeau and congrats for your blog. The same to Citoyen. Keep up the good word.
Love and freedom.
Friday, 28 November 2008
Muslim terrorism in India
Lots of things are going on in the world around us at the minute, but unfortunately I can't find the time to discuss all of them in writing.
On Wednesday 26th of November 2008, some gunmen have attacked several spots in Mumbay (India), including luxury hotels, in what seems an orchestrated terrorist action. The attacks have been claimed by another Muslim terrorist group.
Muslims have a problem with their religion. That is something that everyone in the world but they know. But the issue for the non-muslims is that they are taking violence against the different to extreme limits and that their madness may impact our lives badly. The same way it did with the 100 dead people in Mumbay this week, or in Madrid in 2004, or in London the 7/7, or in NY in 2001. Fatally.
However, most terrorist acts don't change History. There are some that do, such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, that triggered the WWI, or the murder of the Member of the Spanish Parliament José Calvo Sotelo, which triggered the Spanish Civil War. But most terrorist attacks don't change History, just their victims' history. The show must go on and for them the victims that sucks.
Aware of the slow reaction and usual opposition to violence of normal citizens, terrorists try to generate terror in their target in order to achieve their aims. But nevertheless the terrorists also foster a violent response by the attacked society which would enable them to justify their terrorism. Terrorists hate and they are good at that, so they want everyone to learn to hate and to take part in their bloody game.
I was discussing the Mumbay shootings on Wednesday evening with an Indian workmate. Our company is a multi-cultural work place where staff from very different backgrounds treat each other as equals. Staff is very respectful with the difference as long as some common professional rules are kept. Considering that work culture and the fact that Hindu people are very pacific, I was shocked to listen the excited talk of my Indian workmate. He was calling for extreme measures agains the muslims while it was possible, before they were too powerful to be beaten, before any islamic terrorist group had the atomic bomb... he was calling for the erradication of the muslims. I felt very sad as I saw that muslim terrorists were accomplishing the objective of their terrorist attacks on Indian sole: they are making the Hindu people learn to hate. To hate the muslims. And that may be the beginning of yet another religious war, the most lethal type of war because it's utterly irrational. And the jihad the muslim extremist are always looking for following their reading of the Koran.
I am profoundly concerned. All this goes against:
Love and freedom.
On Wednesday 26th of November 2008, some gunmen have attacked several spots in Mumbay (India), including luxury hotels, in what seems an orchestrated terrorist action. The attacks have been claimed by another Muslim terrorist group.
Muslims have a problem with their religion. That is something that everyone in the world but they know. But the issue for the non-muslims is that they are taking violence against the different to extreme limits and that their madness may impact our lives badly. The same way it did with the 100 dead people in Mumbay this week, or in Madrid in 2004, or in London the 7/7, or in NY in 2001. Fatally.
However, most terrorist acts don't change History. There are some that do, such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, that triggered the WWI, or the murder of the Member of the Spanish Parliament José Calvo Sotelo, which triggered the Spanish Civil War. But most terrorist attacks don't change History, just their victims' history. The show must go on and for them the victims that sucks.
Aware of the slow reaction and usual opposition to violence of normal citizens, terrorists try to generate terror in their target in order to achieve their aims. But nevertheless the terrorists also foster a violent response by the attacked society which would enable them to justify their terrorism. Terrorists hate and they are good at that, so they want everyone to learn to hate and to take part in their bloody game.
I was discussing the Mumbay shootings on Wednesday evening with an Indian workmate. Our company is a multi-cultural work place where staff from very different backgrounds treat each other as equals. Staff is very respectful with the difference as long as some common professional rules are kept. Considering that work culture and the fact that Hindu people are very pacific, I was shocked to listen the excited talk of my Indian workmate. He was calling for extreme measures agains the muslims while it was possible, before they were too powerful to be beaten, before any islamic terrorist group had the atomic bomb... he was calling for the erradication of the muslims. I felt very sad as I saw that muslim terrorists were accomplishing the objective of their terrorist attacks on Indian sole: they are making the Hindu people learn to hate. To hate the muslims. And that may be the beginning of yet another religious war, the most lethal type of war because it's utterly irrational. And the jihad the muslim extremist are always looking for following their reading of the Koran.
I am profoundly concerned. All this goes against:
Love and freedom.
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
How much is enough?
Catalan and Basque nationalism are creations of the late 19th century. They stem from industrialisation, which made these the richest regions in the country, taking in migrants from elsewhere in Spain. At the time the Spanish state, unlike its French counterpart, lacked the resources to integrate the country, says Antonio Elorza, a Basque political scientist at Madrid’s Complutense University. Otherwise Catalonia and the Basque country would have been as content within Spain as Languedoc and Brittany are within France.
Mike Reid, How much is enough?, The Economist (06/11/2008)
I usually read the two main London-based financial media: Financial Times and The Economist, two of the most influential economical media in the world, together with the Wall Street Journal. I prefer The Economist because of its more "laissez-faire" opinions but I have always been somewhat sceptical with their judgement on the Spanish politics (at least it does not favour openly the Spanish Socialist Party as the FT often does). However, this Saturday's Special Report by TheEconomist gifted us with an audacious and correct analysis of Spain's economical and political situation: The party is over.
One of the articles of the report, How much is enough?, on the Spanish devolution of power to the regions, is so extremely accurate that I called my housemate so we could read it and enjoy it together. I could not believe some Britons at last were considering the Spanish regional nationalisms as they actually are: selfish, parochial and irrational. Though it stated the observable, plain truth, it made me very happy that an unbiased foreigner had been able to point the nakedness of the emperor (i.e., the non-sense of the nationalists' requests) after having observed, been informed and checked their opinions.
Of course, the nationalists yelled with rage and called for apologies: they are pissed off because truth hurts and even more when it is told in such a fair, balanced and English manner. As the report's author Mike Reid says, the Catalan government was upset by the Catalan ex-president being called "cacique" (provincial political boss, a kind of Mafia boss without the killings) because it is true.
Love and freedom.
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Festival at Royal Opera House
Last Sunday I attended the Deloitte Ignite festival at the Royal Opera House with some friends.
With glorious sunshine at the Covent Garden Piazza we enjoyed the Random Dance show performed by Wayne McGregor and his group of up to 50 London and South East school children. A group of special needs children took part in the show and its valuable performance received the most warming applause from the crowd.
Apparently the festival achieved its goal of attracting a diverse audience into the Opera House, many visiting for their first time. Amongst the crowds were young and old, families and even an A-list celebrity. Oscar award-winning actress Nicole Kidman was seen exploring the festival. I met her in the bar just to say "Hi Nicole, catch you later" given the number of times I have seen her recently: we are in good terms. :-)
Love and freedom.
With glorious sunshine at the Covent Garden Piazza we enjoyed the Random Dance show performed by Wayne McGregor and his group of up to 50 London and South East school children. A group of special needs children took part in the show and its valuable performance received the most warming applause from the crowd.
Apparently the festival achieved its goal of attracting a diverse audience into the Opera House, many visiting for their first time. Amongst the crowds were young and old, families and even an A-list celebrity. Oscar award-winning actress Nicole Kidman was seen exploring the festival. I met her in the bar just to say "Hi Nicole, catch you later" given the number of times I have seen her recently: we are in good terms. :-)
Love and freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
