30 November 2019 ~ 44 Comentarios

United States: the nation against the republic

By Carlos Alberto Montaner

The collision is inevitable in 2020. The nation is woven with subjective perceptions and stereotypes. The republic, with laws that respond to social changes.

The nation gives us the platonic idea of “the Americans”: they are white, blond, independent and brave, presumably with clear eyes, idealistic, nationalistic, enterprising. They worship the Christians’ god, are heterosexuals and communicate in English. Naturally, not all are like that, but stereotypes are there for a reason. The hymn reflects that mythology. The flag flies over “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

The republic, at least today, claims that “the Americans” are of different colors and mixtures, believers or non-believers in any god, and are subject to rules or social conventions that do not take sexuality or gender into account. Many have come fleeing from national disasters. They are united by the Constitution and the law, not by the supposed “national identity”. They embrace constitutional patriotism. In the mid-21st century, the number of blacks, Hispanics and Asians will exceed that of “white Americans.”

This dichotomy will reappear in the 2020 elections between Donald Trump, quintessence of the nation, and whoever is elected as Democratic candidate among the dozen who aspire to be the White House’s tenant.

There are, old, young and mature people; Christians, Jews, atheists (in pectore) and agnostics; whites, blacks, half-breeds and Hispanics; gays decorated for their repeated presence in wars, men and women who are “average” south of the waist; radicals and conservatives; socialists and social democrats; billionaires, millionaires and middle classes; extremely educated people and less studious beings.

The last one to enter the battle has been Mike Bloomberg, a 77-year-old Jewish New Yorker, a philanthropist with a three-term experience as New York City’s mayor. Bloomberg is the ninth richest man on the planet. But he did not inherit his fortune; he built it with sheer talent, luck and technology. The nation’s anti-Semitism, fortunately, is far from him. In the past, the voters, as part of the national identity, mostly white, were anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-feminist, as reflected in the raids of the KKK and the sorrows of the suffragists.

The regional round of primaries begins in Iowa. Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is likely to win. His strange last name comes from his father, a university professor from the island of Malta, in the Mediterranean. He is young, energetic, moderate, well trained academically, graduated from Harvard and a “Rhode Scholar”, a white Maltese, which means a lot of mixtures. He served with distinction a couple of times in the Middle East wars and earned two meritorious medals.

He is openly gay. In 2018 he married Chasten Glezman, a teacher who adopted the politician’s last name. Interestingly, this personality trait of Pete may not harm him among the Democrats who vote according to the republic’s true values. If it is legal, and if he is the best candidate, who cares about what happens in the bedroom of two adults determined to love each other who did not choose their sexuality but assumed it?

This is a variant of the reasoning that made Barack Obama president. (Interestingly, in the United States blacks and Hispanics are the groups most loaded of sexual prejudice.) What did the color of Obama’s skin matter? Voting for Obama was to show that racial prejudices could be avoided. Voting for a gay means to eliminate prejudices about people’s intimate behavior.

After all, he would not be the first gay president of the United States, but he would certainly be the first to admit his homosexuality. The single James Buchanan, the 15th president, had that priority. His adversaries called him “Nancy.” Carl Sandburg also insinuated the same thing about Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, in his famous biography, although with no other proof than the fact that for several years Lincoln shared his bed with another adult named Joshua Fry Speed. Naturally, winning in Iowa does not mean that Pete Buttigieg will be the Democratic candidate. It is only the first obstacle.

44 Responses to “United States: the nation against the republic”

  1. Manuel 30 November 2019 at 2:17 pm Permalink

    hay un solo modo de saber q le preocupa a los
    Esbirros: busca de que nos quieren convencer
    Y de cuales temas escapan:
    La oposición suele irse con la de trapo y marearse
    en todas partes (es su característica fundamental)

  2. Julian Perez 30 November 2019 at 4:26 pm Permalink

    Prefiero no comentar este artículo, pero dejando claro que es un acto volitivo, no que lo haya pasado por alto o que no sea un tema que me interese. Los que me conocen entenderán las razones de mi abstención.

  3. Manuel 30 November 2019 at 9:08 pm Permalink

    Cuestión de tiempo


    A matter of time

    “ Google announced in October that its 53-qubit quantum processor had needed only 200 seconds to complete a problem that would have required 10,000 years on a supercomputer.‘

  4. Manuel 1 December 2019 at 1:45 pm Permalink

    It is human nature, it is not hispanic heritage:

    ‘ I grew up in a small town in California, with a population of just over 2,000. When I was in the third grade, my classroom had exactly one black student. It was an election year: George H W Bush versus Michael Dukakis. When the traditional student poll was held, she was the only student who said she preferred Dukakis. Other students pressured her until she changed her vote to Bush.

    It’s hard to overstate the small-town social pressure to conform. When a childhood friend posted a hoax story about Hillary Clinton on Facebook recently, I directed him (without comment) to a Snopes piece debunking it. His response was, “You’ve forgotten where you came from.” Then he unfriended me. For many in rural America, it’s downright logical to deny objective reality on any particular issue. Supporting a Democrat might mean a better standard of living in some ways. But, it will also come at a personal cost’

    • Manuel 1 December 2019 at 2:01 pm Permalink

      ‘ People especially value the opinions of those who model success in their daily lives. Donald Trump spent years playing a successful businessman in a game show that many of these people watched regularly. To them, he’s practically a hometown success story. Of these, there are too few. Between 2008 and 2017, 99 per cent of America’s job and population growth was in metropolitan areas. Rural Americans are being left behind’

  5. Manuel 1 December 2019 at 3:47 pm Permalink


    If u happen to have the opportunity to make a question to God, what it would be?

    • Julian Perez 1 December 2019 at 5:11 pm Permalink

      I would ask Him what does He wants from me. Is what I usually ask in my prayers. That is what is used to be called “enlightment” or “wisdom” and is what Solomon asked for.

      I’m pragmatic. My questions don’t use to be “why” (I’m not too curious) but “how” or “what should I do”. What matters are the decisions you have to face each day, That’s what define who are you: your choices.

  6. manuel 1 December 2019 at 8:45 pm Permalink

    la religion toda puede ser sólo el
    Resultado de nuestra necesidad
    de meditar

    Asi como respirar, comer, andar, sexo…


    That’s it

    • manuel 1 December 2019 at 8:48 pm Permalink

      …fruto de nuestro inevitable onanismo… espiritual

  7. manuel 1 December 2019 at 9:19 pm Permalink

    Este es el año ‘nadie conforme con lo que tiene’:

    Fue inaugurado por el golpe de Guaidó apoyado
    Por 5 docenas de países e importantes organizaciones,
    Seguido de largas caravanas centroamericanas
    Hacia eeuu y las revueltas de los últimos 3 meses
    En todo el mundo

    • manuel 1 December 2019 at 9:22 pm Permalink

      protestas que tienen mucho en común con la de los
      Chalecos Amarillos en Francia, menos la de evo
      Y hong kong que tienen mas que ver con gente
      Cansada de la dictadura de un partido

    • manuel 1 December 2019 at 9:40 pm Permalink

      …motivo por el que en cuba el partido
      Recluta jóvenes para grabar el delicioso video
      En el se les ve recitar “somos felices aquí”

      • manuel 1 December 2019 at 9:55 pm Permalink

        Típico de fascistas

        • manuel 1 December 2019 at 9:57 pm Permalink

          de las aldeas potemkins

  8. manuel 1 December 2019 at 10:06 pm Permalink

    “ some beliefs remain universal, and central to today’s politics. None is more influential than the idea that inequality has risen in the rich world. People read about it in newspapers, hear about it from their politicians and feel it in their daily lives. This belief motivates populists, who say selfish metropolitan elites have pulled the ladder of opportunity away from ordinary people. It has given succour to the left, who propose ever more radical ways to redistribute wealth (see Books & arts section). And it has caused alarm among business people, many of whom now claim to pursue a higher social purpose, lest they be seen to subscribe to a model of capitalism that everyone knows has failed.
    In many ways the failure is real. Opportunities are restricted. The cost of university education in America has spiralled beyond the reach of many families. Across the rich world, as rents and house prices have soared, it has become harder to afford to live in the successful cities which contain the most jobs (see Free exchange). Meanwhile, the rusting away of old industries has concentrated poverty in particular cities and towns, creating highly visible pockets of deprivation. By some measures inequalities in health and life expectancy are getting worse.
    Yet precisely because the idea of soaring inequality has become an almost universally held belief, it receives too little scrutiny. That is a mistake, because the four empirical pillars upon which the temple rests—which are not about housing or geography, but income and wealth—are not as firm as you might think. As our briefing this week explains, these four pillars are being shaken by new research.
    Consider, first, the claim that the top 1% of earners have become detached from everyone else in recent decades, which took hold after the “Occupy Wall Street” movement in 2011. This was always hard to prove outside America. In Britain the share of income of the top 1% is no higher than in the mid-1990s, after adjusting for taxes and government transfers. And even in America, official data suggest that the same measure rose until 2000 and since then has been volatile around a flat trend. It is easily forgotten that America has put in place several policies in recent decades that have cut inequality, such as the expansion of Medicaid, government-funded health insurance for the poor, in 2014.
    Now some economists have re-crunched the numbers and concluded that the income share of the top 1% in America may have been little changed since as long ago as 1960. They argue that earlier researchers mishandled the tax-return data that yield estimates of inequality. Previous results may also have failed to account for falling marriage rates among the poor, which divide income around more households—but not more people. And a bigger chunk of corporate profits may flow to middle-class people than previously realised, because they own shares through pension funds. In 1960 retirement accounts owned just 4% of American shares; by 2015 the figure was 50%.
    The second wobbly pillar is the related claim that household incomes and wages have stagnated in the long term. Estimates of inflation-adjusted median-income growth in America in 1979-2014 range from a fall of 8% to an increase of 51%, and partisans tend to cherry-pick a figure that tells a convenient story. The huge variation reflects differences in how you treat inflation, government transfers and the definition of a household, but the lowest figures are hard to believe. If you argue that income has shrunk you also have to claim that four decades’ worth of innovation in goods and services, from mobile phones and video streaming to cholesterol-lowering statins, have not improved middle-earners’ lives. That is simply not credible.
    Third is the notion that capital has triumphed over labour as ruthless businesses, owned by the rich, have exploited their workers, moved jobs offshore and automated factories. The claim that inequality is being driven by the rich accumulating capital was a central thesis of Thomas Piketty’s book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, which in 2014 made him the first rock-star economist since Milton Friedman improbably filled auditoriums in the 1980s. Not all Mr Piketty’s theories caught on among economists, but it is widely assumed that a falling share of the rich world’s GDP has been going to workers and a rising share to investors. After a decade of soaring stock prices, this has some resonance with the public.
    Recent research, however, suggests that the decline in labour’s fortunes is explained in most rich countries by exorbitant returns to homeowners, not tycoons. Strip out housing and the earnings of the self-employed (which are hard to divide between capital and labour income), and in most countries labour shares have not fallen. America since 2000 is an exception. But that reflects a failure of regulation, not a fundamental flaw in capitalism. American antitrust regulators and courts have been unforgivably lax, allowing some industries to become too concentrated. This has enabled some firms to gouge their customers and book abnormally high profits.
    The last pillar is that inequalities of wealth—the assets people own, minus their liabilities—have been soaring. Again, this has always been harder to prove in Europe than America. In Denmark, one of the few places with detailed data, the wealth share of the top 1% has not risen for three decades. By contrast, few deny that the richest Americans have sprinted ahead. But even here, wealth is fiendishly difficult to estimate.
    Not so rich pickings

    The campaign of Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic presidential contender, reckons that the share of wealth owned by the richest 0.1% of Americans rose from 7% in 1978 to 22% in 2012. But a plausible recent estimate suggests that the rise is only half as big as this. (For connoisseurs, the difference rests on the factor by which you scale up investors’ wealth from the capital income they report to the taxman.) This imprecision is a problem for politicians, including Ms Warren and Bernie Sanders, who want wealth taxes, since they may raise less revenue than they expect.
    The fact that dubious claims are made about inequality does not reduce the urgency of tackling economic injustice. But it does call for ensuring that the assumptions on which policies are based are accurate. Those, like Britain’s Labour Party, who favour the radical redistribution of income and wealth ought to be sure that inequality is as high as they think it is—especially when their policies bring knock-on costs such as deterring risk-taking and investment. By one estimate, Ms Warren’s wealth tax would leave America’s economy 2% smaller after a decade.
    Until these debates are resolved, it would be better for policymakers to stick to more solid ground. The rich world’s housing markets are starving young workers of cash and opportunity; more building is needed in the places that offer attractive jobs. America’s economy needs a revolution in antitrust enforcement to reinvigorate competition. And regardless of trends in inequality, too many high-income workers, including doctors, lawyers and bankers, are protected from competition by needless regulation and licensing, and senseless restrictions on high-skilled immigration, both of which should be loosened.
    Such an agenda would require governments to take on NIMBYS and corporate lobbies. But it would reduce inequality and boost growth. And its benefits do not depend on a set of beliefs about income and wealth that could yet turn out to be wrong. ■

  9. manuel 1 December 2019 at 10:21 pm Permalink

    “ internet, far from being a benevolent source of useful information, has become a swamp of lies, misdirection and conspiracy theories that is harming politics.
    Spooked—especially by the irritation of American politicians, who regulate them—some tech firms have changed their rules. Twitter is to ban nearly all political advertising. Google, which owns YouTube, says it will ban ads that make egregiously false claims, and restrict the precision with which political ads can be aimed at specific groups of people. For now, Facebook is sticking to its guns, saying it will not regulate political speech—though there are signs it is wavering (see United States section).
    Mr Zuckerberg is an unpopular man these days. Yet in this case he is right. The rules of digital democracy should not be set by unaccountable bosses in the boardrooms of a handful of American firms—let alone, in future, Chinese ones. If politicians want to change the behaviour of candidates, the levers are in their hands. It is their job to make the laws under which everyone else—technology firms included—must operate.
    Partisan rancour and short-term self-interest, particularly in America, may make that difficult. But history offers hope. Politicians have agreed in the past on whether and how to regulate other media technologies such as radio, television and newspapers. The rules created for analogue democracies offer a relatively uncontroversial starting-point for digital ones. In America, for instance, the source of political television ads must be disclosed. The same should be true online. Facebook’s decision to stand back looks more in keeping with the traditions of American democracy than Twitter’s or Google’s commitment to step in. Britain is much stricter. Political advertising is mostly banned on television and radio, with the exception of a limited number of tightly regulated “party-political broadcasts”. Again, it is not clear why the rules for online videos should be more relaxed than those for pitches that appear on television.
    New media offer new possibilities and hence raise new dangers. One is the ability to run “microtargeted” ads, aimed at small groups thought to be most receptive to their message. To the extent that it helps politicians deal with particular worries among voters, this can be beneficial. If abused, though, it could amplify exactly the sort of two-faced campaigning the telegraph was supposed to have banished.
    It is too soon to limit microtargeting. Not only would it be hard to draw clear lines but, more important, politicians should be reluctant to ban each other’s speech. As a first step, they should enforce transparency, ensuring that even narrowly targeted ads are available for anyone to examine. Rival politicians will have incentives to dig up evidence of foul play by their opponents, helping keep everyone honest. The tech giants are already making similar moves voluntarily. That could make it easier to convert them into legal requirements.
    Another difference between old media and new is that the tech firms are planet-spanning in a way that newspapers and television never were. Democracy, though, remains a local affair. America and Britain have different traditions; those of France, Australia or India are different again. If governments decide to tighten the rules around online advertising—and perhaps attempt to drain the digital swamp more broadly—the result will be a profusion of local laws for the tech firms to comply with. That will be a burden, but it is the price of success. ■

  10. manuel 1 December 2019 at 11:07 pm Permalink

    Everyone’s talking about huge Chile’s inequality but:

    “ According to Daniel Waldenström of the Research Institute of Industrial Economics, in Stockholm, good data on the distribution of wealth exist for only three countries beside America—Britain, Denmark and France. In these places it is difficult to discern any clear trends in inequality over the past few decades (see chart 3). One study from Katrine Jakobsen of the University of Copenhagen and co-authors (including Mr Zucman) finds that the wealth share of the top 1% in Denmark rose in the 1980s but has remained fairly constant since then. In France whether or not wealth inequality appears to be rising depends on whether you track capital income or inheritances, says Mr Waldenström”

  11. joseluis 2 December 2019 at 10:29 am Permalink

    La colisión es inevitable en 2020. La nación está tejida con percepciones y estereotipos subjetivos. La república, con leyes que responden a los cambios sociales.

    La nación nos da la idea platónica de “los estadounidenses”: son blancos, rubios, independientes y valientes, presumiblemente con ojos claros, idealistas, nacionalistas, emprendedores. Adoran al dios de los cristianos, son heterosexuales y se comunican en inglés. Naturalmente, no todos son así, pero los estereotipos están ahí por una razón. El himno refleja esa mitología. La bandera ondea sobre “la tierra de los libres y el hogar de los valientes”.

    La república, al menos hoy, afirma que “los estadounidenses” son de diferentes colores y mezclas, creyentes o no creyentes en cualquier dios, y están sujetos a reglas o convenciones sociales que no tienen en cuenta la sexualidad o el género. Muchos han venido huyendo de los desastres nacionales. Están unidos por la Constitución y la ley, no por la supuesta “identidad nacional”. Abrazan el patriotismo constitucional. A mediados del siglo XXI, el número de negros, hispanos y asiáticos superará el de los “estadounidenses blancos”.

    Esta dicotomía reaparecerá en las elecciones de 2020 entre Donald Trump, la quintaesencia de la nación, y quien sea elegido como candidato demócrata entre la docena que aspira a ser el inquilino de la Casa Blanca.

    Hay personas mayores, jóvenes y maduras; Cristianos, judíos, ateos (en pectore) y agnósticos; blancos, negros, mestizos e hispanos; gays decorados por su presencia repetida en guerras, hombres y mujeres que son “promedio” al sur de la cintura; radicales y conservadores; socialistas y socialdemócratas; multimillonarios, millonarios y clases medias; personas extremadamente educadas y seres menos estudiosos.

    El último en entrar en la batalla ha sido Mike Bloomberg, un judío neoyorquino de 77 años, filántropo con una experiencia de tres períodos como alcalde de la ciudad de Nueva York. Bloomberg es el noveno hombre más rico del planeta. Pero no heredó su fortuna; Lo construyó con puro talento, suerte y tecnología. El antisemitismo de la nación, afortunadamente, está lejos de él. En el pasado, los votantes, como parte de la identidad nacional, en su mayoría blancos, eran antisemitas, católicos, negros, hispanos y antifeministas, como se refleja en las redadas del KKK y las penas de Los sufragistas. La ronda regional de primarias comienza en Iowa. Es probable que gane Pete Buttigieg, alcalde de South Bend,

  12. joseluis 2 December 2019 at 10:39 am Permalink

    Dos y dos son cuatro, cuatro y dos son seis, seis y dos son ocho y ocho dieseis

  13. manuel 2 December 2019 at 10:43 am Permalink

    El estruendoso Capitalismo


  14. joseluis 2 December 2019 at 11:04 am Permalink

    Dos y dos son cuatro, cuatro y dos son seis, seis y dos son ocho y ocho dieseis
    Mi Buenos Aires querido, cuando yo te vuelva ver. Con el peronismo, nunca más.
    Perón llegó, entró la corrupción, la destrucción. Se acabó lo que se daba se acabó.

  15. manuel 2 December 2019 at 12:50 pm Permalink

    llevamos 20 anos recomendanto esta dieta, HACE 5 ANOS se establecio tambien en EE.UU. como la apropiada para protejer el corazon:

    Fifty percent of the plate should consist of fruits and vegetables, with
    remaining portions for whole grains and lean protein foods. When
    using fat for cooking, it should be done by sauteing in healthier oils
    (e.g., canola oil), and addition of judicious amounts of healthy raw oils
    (e.g., olive oil) to dishes is appropriate.

  16. Manuel 2 December 2019 at 2:29 pm Permalink

    el capitalismo mimetiza la naturaleza
    cede a la realidad sin poner cartelitos
    permitiendo el libre flujo de ideas y cosas
    (aunque no este libre de pantanos artificiales
    TODOS transitorios)

    el socialismo es todo lo contrario

    • Manuel 3 December 2019 at 8:58 am Permalink

      el socialismo necesita, por tanto,
      aclararnos que el hombre debe ser un constante transformador de la realidad “TODOS SE HAN DEDICADO A ESTUDIAR LA REALIDAD pero de lo que se trata es de transformala” [Marx] de modo consciente;
      y arremeten con furio contra la “mano invisible del mercado”
      y los “derechos universales del hombre” usados par los poderosos para llevar a cabo sus planes de dominacion:

      no hay poderosos, no hay planes de dominacion, no hay nada:

      todo es una fabula de la gente de “izquierdas” para poder cumplir con aquella tarea marxista de transformar de modo consciente la realidad y para eso cuentan, SOBRE TODAS LAS COSAS, contigo, contigo tonto util

  17. Manuel 2 December 2019 at 9:20 pm Permalink

    “ Sweden has one billionaire for every 250,000 people, one of the highest rates in the world. It is also one of the world’s most unequal countries in terms of the distribution of wealth. An estimate from The Economist finds that the value of Swedish billionaires’ fortunes is equivalent to a quarter of the country’s annual GDP. Only in tax havens such as Cyprus or Monaco, or captured economies such as Russia or Georgia, are plutocrats more dominant”

  18. Manuel 2 December 2019 at 9:35 pm Permalink

    “As in 1968, this is a time of global discontent, but it is particularly intense in Latin America. The protests are not its only manifestation. Popular anger showed up last year in electoral victories for contrasting populists, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico. The overarching trend of recent Latin American elections has been defeat for incumbents, confirmed in the return of Peronism in Argentina in October. In Uruguay Luis Lacalle Pou of the centre-right appears to have ended 15 years of rule by the centre-left in a presidential election on November 24th.
    The causes of this ill humour include economic stagnation or slowdown, the diminishing of opportunity and the fear of falling back into poverty amid persistently deep inequality. The gap between rich and poor has not widened in Latin America, but it has become more visible. Take Chile, where the Costanera Centre, a shopping mall built around a priapic 64-storey office tower in Santiago, has been the target of anger. “A person who earns 300,000 pesos [$375] a month sees a handbag that costs 4m pesos,” says Marta Lagos of MORI Chile, a pollster. Ferraris and Maseratis have arrived, their owners seemingly oblivious to poor housing, overcrowded buses and patchy health care.
    Latin America’s political class has been discredited by corruption and campaign-finance scandals. These, too, are more visible than in the past, thanks to more combative prosecutors, investigative journalists, whistleblowers and freedom-of-information laws. In other words, the growth of transparency has outpaced that of good governance. Political parties, many of which are weakened and fragmented, have largely ceased to do their fundamental job of channelling discontent. The politicians have, in short, been overtaken by the street.
    Diagnosis is easy but finding a cure will be much harder, as governments are discovering. Many of the problems are deep-rooted and their solutions longterm. Higher growth, more progressive tax, higher minimum wages and better social provision would assuage discontent. The problem is that growth depends on raising productivity, which requires unpopular reforms. And conservative elites resist paying more tax. The left in Chile and Colombia is staying on the street to win more concessions. In 1968 prolonged global disorder ended in a conservative reaction. That risk is especially high in Chile, where looting and vandalism continue.
    The immediate official response has been to run for cover. In Ecuador Lenín Moreno’s government cancelled the fuel-price rise and is struggling to get congress’s assent to modest tax increases. Chile’s government is fighting a rearguard action against demands for much higher public spending. In Colombia President Iván Duque may back away from mooted labour and pension reforms. In Brazil Mr Bolsonaro postponed a bill that would trim salaries and jobs in the bloated public sector because of fears it might trigger protests.
    Reform has rarely been easy in Latin America. More presidents may imitate Martín Vizcarra in Peru. In 20 months in office he has ducked unpopular decisions, such as approving a big mine. Riding an anti-politician wave of anger, he shut down an obstructive congress. Along with Mr López Obrador, he is one of only four Latin American presidents with an approval rating of over 50%. Crowd-pleasing gestures can quiet the streets. They postpone discontent, but they will not diminish it. ■

  19. joseluis 2 December 2019 at 11:07 pm Permalink

    El que no haya entendido lo que yo quise decir, ahí los dejo.

  20. manuel 3 December 2019 at 3:03 am Permalink

    Cuan objetivas son las personas?

    Nada, cero, en política

    “ Soviet-era nostalgia coupled with a wave of Russian nationalism has done Stalin’s legacy big favors. 58 percent of Russians say Stalin played a very or mostly positive role in history, along with 57 percent of people in his native Georgia”

    Lo que no sucedió con hitler.

    Así de objetivos podemos ser.

    • manuel 3 December 2019 at 3:05 am Permalink

      los sesgos nos comen por una pierna
      (Debí decir “por una pata”)

      • Manuel 3 December 2019 at 4:01 am Permalink

        pedirnos objetividad, ser objetivos, justos,
        actuar de acuerdo a las evidencias…
        es pedirle a los osos que vuelen

        • Manuel 3 December 2019 at 4:12 am Permalink

          lo cual es toda la única base para la construcción
          del socialismo; pues hombre objetivo, justo, es capitalista.

        • Manuel 3 December 2019 at 4:13 am Permalink

          lo cual es toda la única base para la construcción
          del socialismo; pues el* hombre objetivo, justo, es capitalista

          • Manuel 3 December 2019 at 4:16 am Permalink

            y sólo puede ser encontrado por aquellos capaces
            de entender este hecho elemental; y capaces de
            Separar los granos de la paja, la mentira de la

  21. Manuel 3 December 2019 at 4:35 am Permalink

    “ In a flight of reasoning that only an economist could dream up, the paper suggests that if the pace of automation had been slower in the years before the 2016 contest, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would have plumped for Hillary Clinton.
    A raft of new research, meanwhile, has drawn attention to the political consequences of the housing market. A house is most people’s biggest investment, so changes in its value determine satisfaction with the status quo. Homeowners in areas where the property market is buoyant feel richer than those where it is flat. The housing market also affects people’s perceptions of personal freedom. Those living in an area with low house prices may feel trapped, since they would struggle to afford a move to somewhere more vibrant. Such effects may well have strengthened in recent decades, since in many developed countries the gap between house prices in the richest areas and the poorest has widened.
    Ben Ansell of Oxford University and David Adler of the European University Institute analysed data from the Brexit referendum of 2016 and the French presidential election the next year. After controlling for factors such as demography and pay, they found that in an area where house prices had tripled in nominal terms, the Remain vote share was 16 percentage points higher than in one with no change. Similarly, areas of France with strong house prices were inclined to choose Emmanuel Macron over the far-right Marine Le Pen. Further work by Mr Ansell and others has found that areas with falling house prices tend to see rising support for populists, such as the Danish People’s Party, the Finns Party and the Sweden Democrats. Simply put, a home-owner on a nice street in Notting Hill, Saint-Germain-des-Prés or Östermalm is very likely to support candidates of “the establishment”.
    I feel the earth move

    The old straightforward relationship between the economic cycle and elections could yet return. But the implication of the new research is that support for populism is a deeper-rooted feature of Western economies. People’s perception of the threat from cheap imports or robots, or of being trapped by high house prices, will not change overnight. Governments will need to find ways to compensate those who lose out from wrenching economic change, and to make housing more affordable. Voters care less than they used to about the economy’s immediate impact on their wallets. But they care more than ever about how the economy shapes their identity—their sense of security, and their freedom. ■

  22. Manuel 3 December 2019 at 7:51 am Permalink

    Noticia que no te dará ningún anticapitalista:

    “ UNAIDS and the World Health Organisation, the international agencies charged with dealing with the epidemic, promote December 1st as World AIDS Day.
    This year is the last before the target date for the success of the latest of the agencies’ campaigns to roll out the antiretroviral drugs that both keep those already infected with HIV alive and stop them passing the virus on. This particular campaign is called 90-90-90. Its aims are that, by the end of 2020, 90% of all those around the world who are infected will know they are infected; 90% of that group will be receiving sustained antiretroviral therapy; and 90% of those receiving therapy will have had the virus effectively suppressed.
    The 90-90-90 campaign follows the 3 by 5 initiative, begun in 2003, to put 3m people on the drugs by 2005, and the subsequent target of 15 by 15. The latest estimate is that 38m people are infected with HIV, so 90-90-90 implies 28m being treated successfully. As the chart shows, doing this by 2020 is unlikely. Whether that is seen as a failure, though, depends on your point of view. Had the target been reached easily is would surely have been criticised as unambitious.
    Regardless of when 90-90-90 is achieved the next aim, 95-95-95, is already pencilled in for 2030. This is also the year set by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals for the end of AIDS as a public health threat.
    The exact meaning of that phrase is unclear. But in principle eliminating HIV is possible with existing technology. As has happened with smallpox and polio, the identification and treatment of all who are infected would stop new cases arising. The slogans for this are “zero new HIV infections”, “zero AIDS-related deaths” and (AIDS being an illness that has always been surrounded by prejudice) “zero discrimination”.
    Unlike smallpox and polio, however, there is no vaccine against HIV. If this state of affairs continues, eliminating the virus will mean giving drugs to all those infected until they have died of other causes. It will also mean someone paying for those drugs. And, in the case of those living in the poorest parts of the world, that “someone” is often going to be taxpayers in rich countries, who already contribute about $8bn a year to the anti-AIDS effort. Exterminating HIV, then, will be a huge undertaking and an expensive one. But not, with luck, an impossible one. ■

  23. Manuel 3 December 2019 at 8:00 am Permalink

    No todos los héroes tienen superpoderes
    Y usan capa

    Algunos tienen días sin dormir,
    Décadas de estudio
    Y usan bata blanca

    Feliz día del medico!

  24. Víctor López 3 December 2019 at 8:12 am Permalink

    Feliz día!

    …así, con guantes.

  25. Cubano-Americano 3 December 2019 at 3:20 pm Permalink

    Los Transgénicos:

    El problema de los Transgénicos es un problema sin solución.

    Las semillas “mejoradas” ya pierden aproximadamente el 50% de la capacidad energética.

    Desde el punto de vista científico gnóstico, por ejemplo, una naranja biológica equivale a 5 naranjas injertas. La ciencia oficial mide supuestamente mas nutrientes en la injerta, pero en lo interno es lo contrario.

    El organismo desecha el 50% de los injertos y transgénicos.

    La modificación genética la hacen con una semilla híbrida y luego la infectan con genes de animales.

    El resultado es algo que NI ES VEGETAL, NI ES ANIMAL.

    El estomago lucha entonces contra algo que no conoce.

    El 70% de las enzimas mueren en el combate, causando:
    1. Que no se aprovechan los nutrientes.
    2. Irritación del Intestino (sobre todo el colon). 3: Estreñimiento Crónico.
    4. Fermentaciones en la corriente sanguínea, lo que afecta de manera irreparable el cerebro.

    Estamos, queridos hermanos, frente a la muerte.

    Todas las compotas, sodas, Corn Flakes, etc, son Transgénicos.
    No se debe tomar este problema a la ligera.

    Consumir en lo posible comestibles biológicos.

    El V.M. Lakhsmi sugiere formar Cooperativas o Centros de Acopio para las comunidades y Pueblos Gnósticos, donde se formen equipos que compren productos a los campesinos pequeños, para los cuales los transgénicos todavía son prohibitivos.


    1. La fumigación es peligrosa.

    2. Porque se le agregue calcio, etc. a una mata de naranja, esta no se daña, el Árbol hace una transformación.

    3. El abono quimico no daña la planta, pero si daña la tierra. No abusar de él.

    4. Los productos hidropónicos no son malos.

    5. Con 1000 m2 es suficiente para comer una familia.

    Nota: a través de la Ecología podemos también llevar la Gnosis a una humanidad que directa o indirectamente le afecta el problema de la comida y el ambiente.

  26. Víctor López 3 December 2019 at 4:41 pm Permalink

    Sabrá este tipo lo que significa “gnóstico”?

    Es como si dijera científicos espiritistas, científicos adivinos, científicos chamanes…

    Vio alguna vez un árbol de naranjas, doctor esotérico?

  27. Víctor López 3 December 2019 at 9:21 pm Permalink

    Qué pelada de culo se ha pagado, Lucas. La ignorancia de un galeno cubano actual es insólita, y no porque desconozca el significado del término, sino porque cualquier fantasía publicada por embaucadores (porque eso son los gnósticos) usted se la cree. No sabe acaso que astrólogos, espiritistas, mantras y demás charlatanes, se autodenominan todos “científicos”.

    Tenga al menos un mínimo conocimiento del tema antes de publicar. Las naranjas se insertan sobre vástagos de naranja agria, de fruto comercialmente inservible pero inmune a la terrible enfermedad de “la tristeza”, resistente a los hongos y con un fuerte sistema radial. Lo que se inserta sobre estos vástagos crece más rápido y da mayores cosechas, además de mantener el patrón genético puro, porque las nacidas de semilla, pudieron ser polinizadas por cualquier otro tipo de variedad.

    Las únicas naranjas que parecen contener un 1/5 de nutrientes son las de la variedad “Orlando”, muy grandes y de cosecha abundante pero que parecen contener “solo agua”, y como cumplen con las regulaciones gubernamentales, son la variedad de mayor siembra en la Florida. Su maestro gnóstico, muy científico el tipo, debe haber sacado la estúpida conclusión de ahí.

    No tengo paciencia para abordar los demás disparates que enlistó, pero me espanta solo pensar que algunos desafortunados, lleguen a poner su salud en manos de un incapaz como usted. Primeramente lo supuse un embaucador, pero al fin comprendí que se trata solo de estulticia y falta de formación. Saludos.

Leave a Reply