sabato, ottobre 31, 2009
Un'altra bordata demolidora de Yoani, non tanto per l'osadia di colarse en territorio enemigo, quanto il riuscire a inserirsi con una domanda traversa e provocare NIENTE ALTRO CHE ATACCHI UFFICIALI, talmente vuoti e anacronistici da SQUILLARE alle orecchie dei cibernauti di tutto il mondo che letterarmente SE HORRORIZAN quando si pone in dubbio il diritto a FACEBOOK.
Io se fossi in uno qualunque dei due castro comincerei a preoccuparmi, e mi chiedo se non sappiano cosa fare o passino le giornate OFF-LINE (pescando uno e offrendo te a dignitari esteri)
Ossia, il fatto che la controparte di Yoani sia una SPROVVVEDUTISSIMA PROFESORA, che in quel momento finisce su tutte le prime pagine dei giornali e su internet in tutto il mondo, e' ASSOLUTAMENTE INCONCEPIBILE per fidel, e anche per raul, immagino.
Ma enormemente piu' rischioso grande sarebbe affrontare FRONTALMENTE Yoani, rispondendole direttamente, primo perche' LORO NON SANNO DI CHE DIABLO SE ESTA HABLANDO e secondo perche' sarebbe semplicemente RICONOSCERE CHE ESISTE.
Si potrebbe mandargli sotto qualcuno del suo campo, tipo un ramirito, con parole dettate dal coma-andante en jefe, ma le reazioni dialettiche immediate di yoani potrebbero mettere in crisi chiunque, e la inadeguatezza diventerebbe una catastrofe.
Non resterebbe che la vecchia strada castrista della diffamazione, smerdamento, hostigamento, ma attenzione, come scrivevo ieri, oggi Yoani e compagnia sono in grado di TWETTARE praticamente in tempo reale, il che e' come e' come se corresse alla finestra e sotto tutto il mondo ad ascoltare.
Normalmente, la prassi castrista prevederebbe adesso un aumento nel tono dell'hostigamento, con veri e propri "actos de repudio", comite' de barrio, etc, come mandando avanti il popolo a protestare, senza chiamare in ballo la policia politica.
E' probabile, ma alla fine, ci scommetterei, butteranno il cappello per terra e la faranno arrestare.
Ma silenziare Yoani e i suoi non e' facile, e se loro parlano, il mondo ascolta.
The agreement signed in Honduras yesterday is conveniently close to Halloween, a weird omen about its effectiveness and who might win the battle in the end. It is not just a matter of disguise as a Venetian Carnival would have been. In Honduras the threat of further violence and terror exists behind the continuous masquerade where all know what is at stake but where few dare to say it aloud. Freddy would have a field day playing the different inner terror of these people.
We have several pieces that try to explain what the agreement is. The Wall Street Journal titles Honduras 1, Hillary 0. Besides the note that it givers us our third capital H for the day it would seem that the WSJ is betting on the Micheletti combo to carry the day. They do have a point: the Us indeed wants this masquerade out and is indirectly acknowledging that for 4 months the Micheletti administration has been paying the bills and pushing forward the election. The Zelaya camp besides its clownesque discredit has been sabotaging elections instead of trying to take an active role in them and building for the future, which must be reminded is less than 3-4 years from now, less than the duration of a presidential term.
I am not so sure. Zelaya, or Roldos, or another will have the financial backing of Chavez, the implicit support of Brazil if Lula manages to decide who succeeds him, the complacency of the US, the intrigues of Insulza, etc, etc.... In other words, Honduras is far from having escaped the Chavez communism curse (Chavez himself in a lapsus brutis used the term communism to qualify his pseudo socialism of the XXI century).
The Washington Post has a more complete article and a more skeptical one as to who is in the winning seat. It would be all fine if they had charged the beginning of the crisis at Zelaya's attempt at unconstitutionally changing the constitution rather than the fact of the military putting him in pajamas in an airplane. But certain patterns of guilt attribution seem hard to break no matter how much evidence is brought forth.
Curiously in its editorial the Washington Post is way more sanguine than its article. For them, it is OK to sub-title "How the Obama administration outmaneuvered Hugo Chavez". True, on paper Zelaya gets to return, maybe, to his old job but in a much weakened position, a true lame duck presidency while free and recognized elections can now be held. If the turnout is above 60% this would guarantee final proof that Honduras never supported Zelaya's plan to create his own version of presidency for life. The flaw here is that it all depends on how much the US is willing to bend its muscle to enforce the deal. We might expect in the US favor that Lula, having understood the image damage he did by accepting on his own Zelaya in Brazil's embassy, might consider now that supporting the US here and telling Chavez to back off would be in fact a nice touch for Lula to end his presidency with more of a statesman image. That would explain why Chavez is using his trade mark "por ahora" about Zelaya, understanding that for the time being he cannot do anything further in Honduras. "For the time being", it must be underlined.
The New York Times looks more at the strong arms tactics need by the US to reach an agreement. If the WSJ journal took this allegedly forceful attitude as a way out for the US, the Times is somewhat more positive. though there is a slight pro Zelaya aroma that comes out of the article. The NYT, it must be noted, did not worry as much about the hand of Chavez in the continuous whole story, almost contenting itself in making the Honduras crisis a classical banana republic tale. Today we must note this sentence "But hundreds of millions of dollars in American humanitarian assistance continued to flow" making one wonder whether the NYT journalists would have liked to see more misery in the streets of Honduras... Makes you wonder if they ever called Caracas correspondent Simon Romero to check about the bounties of XXI century socialo/communism...
I am not too sure what to think of this agreement. First, for the Micheletti side to sign, no matter how much pressure Hillary put on them, it must mean that they have a fair sense that they can prevail in the end. After all hurricane season is nearly over an Honduras was spared this year, giving less opportunity for chaos which would have favored the Zelaya side. Second, they got what they wanted, elections at the end of the month with Zelaya out long enough to cease being a major destructive influence on the democratic process. Third, having removed Zelaya for so long allowed the transition government to purge or neutralize the local administration of the worse pro Chavez agents: Zelaya will have a hard time putting them back in charge, in particular if the president elect gets a good share of the electorate and if the runner up recognizes the victory without ambiguity.
Indeed, Zelaya might be so weakened now, equally from the corset about to be set up on him as well as his ridiculous handling of the situation, that the Micheletti camp might feel it worth to take the risk of bringing him back in office, to politically finish him up once and for all. There is also the possibility that Zelaya knows his days are over and he will accept to play the game so as to bring back into Honduras people like Patricia Roldos and pass the baton to them. By coming back even as a figurehead, even for only three months, Zelaya ensure his presidential pension, his retirement on his Honduras land and maybe not a too awful position in Honduras history books.
But in such an aleatory situation one never knows what surprises are in store. So let's wait to see first whether the Honduras congress will vote the agreement, the first mine field to cross. It will take at least a week or two, but no more because they need international observers for the elections. That is the final goal after all for the Micheletti people: reach a recognized election result.
31 Octubre 2009 ·Al final, como pasa siempre, se le ve el plumero a los del eje del ALBA, encabezados por los de siempre, el “abominable hombre de Caracas” y su “caballito de la OEA”. Ellos nunca han querido democracia en Honduras, lo que querían era colarse en Honduras a como diera lugar , introducir su Socialismo del Siglo XXI, destruir la economía y anexarla a sus “grananacionales” y hacerlas dependientes de sus asquerosos petrodólares ; y está claro que se quedaron en eso. Añoran el portaviones en tierra. Querían masacre, insurgencia, caos, terrorismo, ingobernabilidad. Ahora como es lógico armaran la pataleta, pues las cosas vuelven a ponerse de derecho y estos seguidores de la doctrina que viene de La Habana de “demócratas ” no tienen nada. Lo vergonzoso es que el mundo siempre lo ha sabido pero les hicieron el juego.El Universal | Venezuela
venerdì, ottobre 30, 2009
giovedì, ottobre 29, 2009
"le ragazze" ne hanno fatta un'altra delle loro, ma questa volta armate di uno strumento di puro terrorismo: l'SMS-TWITTER
Mentre una si colava nella conferenza vietatissima ai bloggers "indipendenti", l'altra fotografa e documentava gli svolgimenti, e altri ancora piu' defilati riprendevano il tutto.
Fermata una (Claudia), l'altra (Yoani) riusciva a infiltrarsi imparruccata, e faceva a tempo di inviare un SMS che veniva immediatamente inoltrato in TWITTERS e da li in facebook in tutto il mondo.>
Estoy en el interior del debate de la revista Temas sobre internet. Entré disfrazada, me quité la peluca después que me llamaron.Quando la riconoscono, lancia la sua bombetta puzzolente e se ne va.
Pregunté si el mismo filtro ideologico que bloquea tantas webs en Cuba, se aplico para no dejar entrar a este debate a varios bloggers.Siamo alla burla, al fare scoppiare il regime come un palloncino: Yoani e Claudia hanno dimostrato che con audacia, organizzazione e sangue freddo si riesce a dimostrare che il castrismo e' tutta una pagliacciata, e che dentro e' marcio e vuoto, pronto a cadere.
Ma il triste e' che tutti lo sanno, e non muovono un muscolo, castrati nei lobi temporali per tutta la vita.
Onore a Yoani e Claudia!
Aqui es la hystoria del asesino comunista cesare battisti, bien bien clarita, en portugues.
lunedì, ottobre 26, 2009
Daniel Duquenal has been writing the popular blog Venezuela News and Views since 2003. His award-winning blog began as private letters to friends overseas. Daniel wrote as an introduction, "Unknowingly, I have written the diary of Venezuela slow descent into authoritarianism, the slow erosion of our liberties, the takeover of the country by a military caste, the surrendering of our soul to our inner demons."
He lives in the Venezuelan countryside and thus has more a "ground zero" view of what Chávez has meant for Venezuela outside of the Caracas circles and the international scene where we are more used to hearing from Chávez.
Many believe that Hugo Chávez was behind the moves that eventually resulted in the ouster of Honduran President Mel Zelaya. I thought it might be interesting to readers to hear from someone who has lived through the changes in Venezuela. Daniel has graciously agreed to this interview:
Do you see similarities between the current situation in Honduras as compared to what has happened in Venezuela or Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua?
Yes and now. It is important to observe that what happened in Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela was also based on a deep social crisis whereas Nicaragua and Honduras seem to have been more directly affected by the wish of a small clique to gain power for the long term using Chavez methods and the Venezuelan people money. When necessary, all of them like to paint the social crisis, inherent to every country of the region to a certain extent, as worse than what it really is. Thus "in the name of the people" all sorts of anti-democratic abuses can be perpetrated.
After 10 years of Chávez, has "21st Century Socialism" lived up to its promises?
Difficult question because it would require first to define what the heck is 21st Century socialism. The more we look at it, the more it looks like a warmed up leftover communism that tries to pretend to be something else. In a way, just like for Cuba, whatever good might have come from the foolish adventure happened early in the regime, all the subsequent years becoming just a single matter of survival for the new political caste that emerged with the regime. In Venezuela the only positive thing that I can give to Chávez is to make certain segments of the population that felt excluded to realize that they not only have a right to come forward and ask for their share, but the duty to do so. Unfortunately since this was done in order to create a clientèle system, the side result has a been social division of country, not necessarily along wealth lines (some of the richest men in Venezuela today are very close to Chávez) but along ideological and emotional terms (fed by an extraordinary corruption). Today we have an extremely polarized society with broken friendships and families, everywhere, at all levels of society. We will pay dearly for that.
As for the material results, the numbers today speak for themselves: Venezuela has the highest inflation and according to any serious international agency, it is one of the countries of the world that will emerge the last from the current world crisis. Non oil exports now represent barely 5% of the total export value.
A lot of North Americans have a misconception of exactly what a constitutional assembly is. Can you give us a brief explanation of how that functioned in Venezuela?
A constitutional assembly, in the good sense of the term, is an assembly elected in a country after either a major national disaster or a major change in the political system. For example after a lost war followed with invasion and occupation a society tends to rebuild itself from scratch. Or when a country decides to fire its king then it needs to figure out a new political system. Chavez subscribed and made his own the idea that political problems of a country can be cured through a new constitution, when in fact what is needed is political resolve and consensus. The ploy worked because too many people in fact, even if they did not like Chavez, thought that a constitution needs to be changed on occasion even if historical precedent in Venezuela indicate that the only "successful" constitution was the one of 1958 which lasted 40 years, the longest one of all.
Just like in Honduras, the 1958 constitution had a no reelection clause, though not as strict: a president could be reelected only AFTER two full terms of his first term. That is, ten years after s/he left office. What Chavez really wanted was immediate reelection and the only way to do that was through a new constitution since the old one would have been too difficult to amend on this matter. Along the way he pushed up the term from 5 to 6 years and thus gained for himself basically 14 years rule when you include the first two years under the old system.
While most Hondurans want to have elections next month and move on, the Honduran Resistance movement has threatened to boycott elections. Election boycotts also occurred in Venezuela. Did a significant portion of the voters boycott? Did the OAS or UN cast any doubts on the Venezuelan elections as a result of the boycott?
The opposition boycotted the 2005 legislative election because it was demonstrated that the privacy of the vote was not guaranteed. Since this happened a few days before the election there was no time (nor will from the government) to address the problem and the election was boycotted. International organizations recognized the result anyway: after all Chavez had won the year before the recall election and massively the regional election. All polls said anyway that chavismo was going to retain its majority in the new assembly. The opposition error was not to boycott, there was a political cost for Chavez there. The real error was to fail in offering a strategy for after the election. That is the real reason why that assembly, elected with less than 15% of the electorate could rule at ease.
What would happen to Honduras vote? Hard to tell. The OAS is obviously a president's club and as such cannot accept that one of their members is booted like that. In other words the OAS has NO CONCERN about the judicial or the legislative powers of its country members. Looking at Venezuela and observing how the OAS allowed Chavez to take over undemocratically the Judicial and Legislative power speaks volumes. On the other hand, once a new president is sworn in and that the vote included at least 60% of the electorate, it will be very difficult to maintain the Zelaya charade. I bet you that some countries will break rank within the OAS once credible elections happen. The challenge here is for the current government to make sure the elections are as free and fair as possible and that as many people as possible do go to vote. After, it is essential that all sides unite behind whomever is elected.
Based on your knowledge of what has happened in Venezuela, if you could advise Hondurans, what advice would you give to them?
It is not for me to give any advice to anyone. I cannot approve of the way Zelaya was ousted, no matter how deserving of it he was. Now you are paying for it. However the destructive attitude of Zelaya who is not afraid to expose Honduras's people blood for his glory establishes without any doubt that he is totally unfit to be a democratic ruler of any country.
I am very amused by the parallel made by the Micheletti "regime" and the one from Chavez. As far as I can tell from here, there seems to be more freedom, more respect for human rights in Honduras today than in Venezuela!!!!!
Maybe the method you chose to resist the Chavez take over of Honduras was not the right one, but most reasonable folks will agree that leaving Zelaya in office was extremely risky. For Chavez it is very cheap to buy an election in Honduras. After all, it would be no more than what he spends each time he campaigns in Zulia state. The anti Zelaya camp could never raise the funds to match what Chavez would give Zelaya for any referendum. Zelaya was not going to play fair and it is up to the Micheletti et al. camp to convince people of that. It is tough but that is the way it is. I truly wish you the best, that you avoid the moral misery that Venezuela has become.
Many thanks go to Daniel. Please visit his blog Venezuelan News and Views. This link will take you to his articles about Honduras.
domenica, ottobre 25, 2009
Injerencia chavista en Colombia
El dinero de los contribuyentes venezolanos se invierte en propaganda e injerencia en el extranjero
Amigos lectores: los invito a que, juntos, tratemos de definir el siguiente caso. Piedad Córdoba es una senadora colombiana, harto conocida en Venezuela por su participación en negociaciones para la liberación de rehenes que se encuentran en poder del grupo narcoterrorista FARC. Sin ánimo de entrar en detalles sobre las simpatías políticas de la senadora Córdoba, son hechos incuestionables: 1) que ella es senadora, y 2) que es colombiana. Hasta ahora estamos claros, ¿no?
Bien, pasemos ahora al siguiente hecho inobjetable: 3) el régimen de Hugo Chávez ha mantenido por varios años una oficina de propaganda en Washington, léase la capital del imperio, llamada (en inglés) Venezuela Information Office. De allí han salido luminarias revolucionarias, tales como Andres Izarra y Eva Golinger. Esa oficina ha recibido millones de dólares provenientes del erario nacional, para contrarrestar lo que los chavistas llaman “ofensivas mediáticas”, léase periodistas haciendo su trabajo. De todo lo citado existe suficiente información pública, revelada por mi, y otras fuentes, hace años.
Ahora bien. Empleados de la Venezuela Information Office, Olivia Goumbri para ser más preciso (no olvidemos: devengando un sueldo proveniente del dinero de todos los venezolanos para defender la imagen de Chávez en EEUU), estuvo encargada de hacer toda clase de contactos tendientes a organizar encuentros y citas, entre Piedad Córdoba y congresistas y senadores norteamericanos.
Por tanto, estimados lectores, ¿cómo podemos definir eso? Es decir, ¿por qué el dinero de los contribuyentes venezolanos es utilizado en pagarle a alguien para que le organice encuentros a una senadora colombiana en los EEUU? ¿Es que los senadores del hermano país no ganan lo suficiente para pagarse sus propios asistentes? ¿Es que Colombia no tiene representación diplomática en Washington, capaz de encargarse de tales eventualidades?
Chávez, y sus apólogos, resienten acusaciones de injerencia. Pero ante este nuevo ejemplo, ¿cómo llamar lo narrado anteriormente? Espero sus comentarios.
Recent events in Honduras demonstrate, clearer than any other problematic political situation in Latin America, the moral fickleness of the so called international community and the media. For that country’s independent and sovereign institutions, read the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office and Congress, ruled, unanimously in the case of Congress, in favor of removing Manuel Zelaya from power, owing to his violations to Honduras constitution. This crucial fact notwithstanding, we have seen universal condemnation of the new administration of Honduras. It comes relentless from all quarters, from all locations, from across parties, it is an issue that has exemplified, like no other, the essence of what unelected world government means. To hell with local authorities, to hell with rulings from local people’s representatives in Congress, for it is the ‘will of the world’ that a man who was trying to do away with democracy, be reinstated in power, as if nothing had happened.