22 January 2021 ~ 20 Comentarios

Joe Biden in power

By Carlos Alberto Montaner

It was the eve of the inauguration. Ernesto Morales called me, excited. Joe Biden had quoted James Joyce to ask to be buried in Delaware. The Irish writer claimed that he had the word “Dublin” engraved in his heart. Biden thinks that, in his case, he loves Delaware with the same intensity that Joyce loved Dublin.

Morales, who is a very cultured young man, believes that it is important that the president can quote Joyce. I’m not so sure, but I suspect that it doesn’t hurt to have read (or tried to read) Ulysses, especially after the failed experience of Donald Trump, a person who has not even read the book that he supposedly “wrote.” That’s what can be guessed from the words of the disappointed “ghost writer” Tony Schwartz (The Art of the Deal.)

In any case, Joe Biden has set a series of measures that he must take during the first 100 days. He has experience and knows how to delegate, which is the key to ruling well. For John F. Kennedy, success was more accessible if the president surrounded himself with a cabinet formed by trustworthy people more competent than himself.

The most difficult task is to vaccinate one hundred million people in that period. One million human beings daily. The easiest is to legalize the status of eleven million illegal immigrants and create a path to naturalization for those who wish to do so. Biden has the support of the whole of society (70%) and both houses. He has it all.

Antony Blinken, the new US Secretary of State chosen by Biden, is not a bit naive. In addition, Trump has made his task easier by returning Cuba to the list of countries that support terrorism. Now, as pressure mounts to return to the Obama era of “engagement without preconditions,” the Biden Administration has an excellent argument to say no –Cuba is a nation that supports terrorism. It does it in Venezuela, Colombia and North Korea, in addition to the fact that it must clarify as soon as possible the sonic attacks against American and Canadian diplomats living on the island.

Republican congresswoman María Elvira Salazar has placed reasonable conditions on Cuba to be removed again from that list of infamous nations by proposing a law backed by a dozen Americans congresspeople –release political prisoners, allow freedom of expression, and seriously move the country towards free and plural elections. Who can be against that?

On the other hand, Blinken has called Nicolás Maduro a “brutal dictator”. He has recognized Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of the only remaining democratic institution in the country, the old National Assembly. He is really looking for a regime change in Venezuela, for the relief of all Latin America. And he wants Alex Saab delivered to him.

This individual is a Maduro frontman detained in Cabo Verde. He knows in depth the country’s corruption because he allegedly participated in it. Starting on February 4, the last legal appeal he has left will be seen, although an Iranian commando force, as it has been revealed, will try to kidnap him and take him to Ethiopia if the United States does not prevent it. For now, it seems that he has been put under “house arrest” until his extradition to the United States is decided. It is from that place that the Iranians will take him.

Blinken, who is a flexible person, believes that Trump, who made many errors and horrors, such as the violent takeover of the Capitol by a pack of “deplorable” people, didn’t do all the wrong things in foreign policy. He assumes that the former president was rightly concerned about China’s behavior, and I believe that he, as Secretary of State, will be willing to defend tooth and nail Taiwan’s right to exist as an independent entity.

In addition, I estimate that because he is a person of Jewish origin, he has a special sensitivity for issues related to Israel, and will know, deep in his heart, that it was a wise move to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, for three main reasons –because each nation has the right to designate its own capital; because the US Congress had decided it; and, finally, because it is up to the United States to assume a leadership role in all instances where freedom, democracy and justice are at stake.

This has been the case since the end of World War II. That’s why this nation has become the first superpower on the face of the earth.

20 Responses to “Joe Biden in power”

  1. manuel 23 January 2021 at 9:50 am Permalink

    que alguien le informe al que maneja este blog que se les rompio el link a


    “404 Not Found

    ver aqui a la derecha de este comentario


    • Manuel 23 January 2021 at 8:04 pm Permalink

      Dado el contexto q c vive

      No me extrañaria q HISPANOPOST
      haya puesto este blog en la lista de esos
      llenos de comentaristas fascistas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  2. manuel 23 January 2021 at 10:40 am Permalink

    vean esas dos caras:


    los estreñidos al poder!

    sacos de mierda al poder!

    continuidad al poder!

    la misma basura al poder!

  3. Manuel 23 January 2021 at 9:37 pm Permalink

    Both the UK Conservative Party and the Republican Party have seen their membership undergo a social transformation as they have lost highly educated voters (particularly among the young) and recruited working-class voters in their place. This transformation creates a dilemma: how do you satisfy your new working-class constituents while remaining committed to lower taxes and smaller government?
    On both sides of the Atlantic, the answer was to divide the country and unite conservative voters by using nationalist rhetoric rather than economic issues. Brexiteers dismissed Remainers as “traitors” and warned that attempts to frustrate “the will of the people” would lead to violence in a way that sounded as much a threat as a prediction. Mr Johnson speculated that Barack Obama’s “part-Kenyan” ancestry made him anti-British and raised the spectre of a “great conspiracy of the deep state” to frustrate Brexit. “Imagine Trump doing Brexit,” Mr Johnson told a group of fund-raisers, smacking his chops. “He’d go in bloody hard.” Mr Johnson tried to go in “bloody hard” himself by proroguing Parliament, a move that was overruled by the Supreme Court, and more recently by threatening to break international law.
    If Mr Johnson’s classical education did not teach him the danger of playing with populist fire, the events of January 6th in Washington should have. America’s democracy and society may have sustained long-term damage. The Republican Party certainly has. If the Tories want to avoid similarly imperilling the nation and the party, they need to change the way they behave, and not just by pretending they never met Mr Trump.
    In America, some on the right are trying to work out how it got captured by Mr Trump and ensure that it never happens again. “Never Trumpers” have been trying to formulate a new conservatism ever since their nemesis appeared on the scene. Others have been joining them as Mr Trump became progressively unhinged. Marcio Rubio, a senator for Florida, is trying to flesh out a new sort of blue-collar conservatism. The Manhattan Institute is studying ways to revive conservatism in the Democrats’ urban heartlands.
    The Tories need to engage in this debate and to develop some real policies to solve the real problems on which populism feeds. Mr Johnson has rightly identified “levelling up”—boosting prosperity outside the south-east of England—as a focus for his government, but has neglected to explain how this might be done. Instead of devoting his considerable talents to divisive rhetoric, he should focus on boring, serious policies to improve Britain. ■

    • Manuel 23 January 2021 at 9:42 pm Permalink

      los q creen q van a desaparecer el trumpismo
      dando consejos
      Con amenazas
      A los conservadores de UK

      • Julian Perez 23 January 2021 at 10:12 pm Permalink

        Manuel, el movimiento que cobró bríos durante la administración de Trump, en realidad tuvo sus raices durante la de Obama, con el Tea Party, como reacción a los intentos de ¨transformar fundamentalmente América¨ (sus propias palabras) de Barack Hussein, su gira por todo el mundo pidiendo disculpas y su negación pública del excepcionalismo americano, Tanta bajeza revolvió a la base. Elegir a alguien no proveniente del mundo de la política, o sea, fuera del pantano, fue una continuación natural. Pero todavía hay demasiados RINOS en el GOP.

        Pero tienes toda la razón del mundo: no desaparecerá. ¿Por qué? Porque más de la mitad de los americanos ama a su país. Y porque hay voces como el Hillsdale y PragerU que consiguen abrir los ojos de muchos jóvenes: no todos son tontos, solamente están desinformados.

        Voy a citar al diablo, tomando una frase de la segunda declaración de la Habana, que resulta que viene al caso: ¨Y esa gran humanidad ha dicho basta y ha echado a andar. Y su marcha de gigantes no se detendrá¨

        • Julian Perez 23 January 2021 at 10:14 pm Permalink

          No creo que puedan repetir el fraude sistemáticamente. Esta vez les salió bien, pero los golpes enseñan. Se encontrará la forma de protegerse de eso.

  4. Manuel 24 January 2021 at 4:45 am Permalink

    LIBERALS HAVE become lazy when thinking about the mob. They have celebrated “people power” when it threatens regimes they disapprove of, in the Middle East, say, or while turning a blind eye to the excesses of protesters who they deem to be on the right side of history—in Portland, Oregon, for example. In August 2020 a mainstream publisher, Public Affairs, produced “In Defence of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action” by Vicky Osterweil.
    The invasion of America’s Capitol by mobs of President Donald Trump’s supporters on January 6th was a reminder of the danger of playing with fire. It is naive to assume that mobs will be confined to the “nice” side of the political spectrum; the left-wing kind by their nature generate the right-wing sort. It is doubly naive to expect that mobs will set limits; it is in their nature to run out of control.
    Political philosophers have been making these points for more than 2,000 years. Pre-modern theorists never tired of warning that, given the chance, the “many-headed monster” would trample the established order. Even liberal thinkers worried that democracy might give rise to “mobocracy”. They argued that the will of the people needed to be restrained by a combination of constitutional intricacy (individual rights, and checks and balances) and civic culture. The wiser among them added that the decay of such restraints could transform democracy into mob rule.
    The first great work of political philosophy, Plato’s “Republic”, was, in part, a meditation on the evils of mob rule. Plato regarded democracy as little more than mob rule by another name—perhaps without the violence, at least at first, but with the same lack of impulse control. He compared the citizens of democracies to shoppers who see a “coat of many colours” in a market and buy it only to discover that it falls apart when it has been worn a couple of times. He noted that democracies are hardwired to test boundaries.
    Plato also argued that democracies inevitably degenerate into anarchy, as the poor plunder the rich and profligacy produces bankruptcy. Anarchy leads to the rule of tyrants: a bully can appeal to the mob’s worst instincts precisely because he is ruled by his own worst instincts. He is, as it were, the mob in the form of a single person. For Plato the only viable alternative to mob rule was the rule of a caste of guardians: philosopher kings trained from infancy to control their emotions and put wisdom before instinct.
    Aristotle, Plato’s great pupil, distinguished between three legitimate forms of government: kingship, aristocracy and democracy. He argued that they each have their dark shadows: tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule. He then outlined the ways in which these virtuous forms of government evolve into their opposites: democracy becomes mob rule when the rich hog the society’s wealth. A more practical thinker than Plato, Aristotle argued that there were two ways of preventing democracy from degenerating into mobocracy: mix in elements of kingship and aristocracy to restrain the will of the people; and create a large middle class with a stake in stability.
    The following centuries saw only a few innovations in thinking about the mob. Machiavelli speculated that clever princes might be able to profit from chaos if they could forge the mob into a battering-ram against a decaying regime. Mostly elites were content with demonisation. They invented a slew of fearsome names for the people—the “beast of many heads”, the “swinish multitude” and the mobile vulgus, or changeable crowd, which gave rise to the term “mob”. They also invented cynical ways of diverting its anarchic energies, most notably Rome’s bread and circuses. But this changed with the French and American revolutions, which were based on contrasting approaches to mob rule.
    Two revolutions

    Initially many celebrated the “people power” of the French revolution. In response to the tumult Wordsworth wrote: “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive/ But to be young was very Heaven!” But many changed their minds when they discovered that, far from unleashing man’s natural goodness, the revolution had set free his inner demons. Those who stuck with the revolution despite the guillotine and the Terror did so on two grounds: that the old regime was responsible for the violence because it created so much pent-up hatred; and that you cannot improve the world without bloodshed. Tom Paine, a British radical, remained a true believer despite the fact that he was imprisoned for ten months during the Terror and only escaped with his life because the chalk mark indicating he should be executed was placed on the wrong door.
    The French Revolution also produced a robust conservative critique of mob rule—first in Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France”, published before the worst of the Terror, then in a flood of works. Burke recognised that the mob has a collective psychology that makes it uniquely dangerous. It is a “monstrous medley of all conditions, tongues, and nations”. It relishes wild abandon—“horrid yells”, “shrilling screams” and the “unutterable abominations of the furies of hell”. It gets so carried away with its own righteous bloodlust that even normally decent people can be transformed into monsters. He predicted that the revolution would end in the massacre of thousands (including the king, queen and priests) and the rise of a dictator who could restore law and order. The cycle of mass protest followed by violence followed by dictatorship set a pattern for subsequent revolutions in Russia (1917), Cuba (1958) and elsewhere.
    The American revolution succeeded where the French revolution and its progeny failed because it was based on a considered fear of “the confusion and intemperance of a multitude”. “Federalist No. 55”, written by either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton, is particularly sharp on the way that ill-designed institutions can turn even sensible citizens into a baying crowd: “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob”.
    The Founding Fathers argued that democracy could avoid becoming mobocracy only if it was hedged with a series of restraints to control the power of the people. Power was divided between the branches of government to make sure that nobody wielded too much. Citizens were given extensive constitutional rights. Senators were given six-year terms to insulate them from fads. They were also initially appointed by state legislatures rather than directly elected. Supreme Court judges were appointed for life, ensuring they cannot be removed by people from other branches.
    Alexis de Tocqueville added his own worries about mob rule in “Democracy in America”. For him the constitution alone is not strong enough to save democracy from the mob. A vigorous civic culture rooted in self-governing communities (he was particularly keen on New England’s townships) and a self-reliant and educated population are also necessary. So too is a responsible elite that recognises that its first duty is to “educate democracy”.
    The march of democracy

    The 19th century saw the world’s ruling elites reconciling themselves to the fact that democracy was the wave of the future. How you dealt with this wave depended largely on your attitude to the mob. Optimists thought that extending the franchise was not only right but also a way to tame the mob. Benjamin Disraeli thought that voting would help assimilate people: just as owning property makes people more sober, so exercising democratic rights converts them into responsible citizens.
    Pessimists held that delay was the best way to avert the mob. Most members of the British ruling class favoured introducing democracy in measured stages because they made a sharp distinction between the respectable middle- and upper-working classes, who would vote responsibly because they owned property, and the unrespectable classes, who, as well as being propertyless, were, in their opinion, addicted to drink and licentiousness. J.S. Mill argued in favour of a “variable franchise”: “one person at least one vote, and up to three or four votes according to education”. Walter Bagehot, editor of The Economist from 1861 to 1877, and a man who worried obsessively about the breakdown of social order, added a new solution: use the monarchy as a theatre that would simultaneously entertain the masses and distract them from the real wielders of power.
    This sort of pessimism has been out of fashion for a long time. The second world war and the defeat of Nazism led to an era of democratic self-confidence, and the fall of the Berlin Wall to one of democratic euphoria. But a few pessimists continued to warn that democracies might well degenerate into mob rule if they neglected the health of their political institutions and civic culture. Seymour Martin Lipset, an American sociologist, echoed Aristotle’s view that a healthy democracy requires broad-based prosperity. Harvey Mansfield, a political philosopher, reiterated Tocqueville’s worry that civic decay might corrupt democracy. Samuel Huntington warned that “democratic overload”, with too many interest groups demanding too much from the state, would lead to democratic disillusionment as the state failed to live up to its ever-escalating promises.
    In recent years the pessimists have grown in number. The experience of countries such as Egypt during the Arab spring confirmed warnings that, without strong institutions in place, democracy would succumb to mob rule. The election of Mr Trump, a reality-TV star, raised profound questions about the health of America’s political regime. Can democracy survive if television channels make billions of dollars by peddling misinformation and partisanship? Or if wealthy people can invest vast sums of money in the political process? Or if society is polarised into a superclass and a demoralised proletariat? Recent events suggest that the answer is “no”.
    The age of democratic naivety died on January 6th. It is time for an age of democratic sophistication. Democracies may well be the best safeguard against mob rule, as liberal democrats have been preaching for centuries. But they can be successful only if countries put the necessary effort into nurturing democratic institutions: guarding against too much inequality, ensuring that voters have access to objective information, taming money in politics and reinforcing checks and balances. Otherwise the rule of the people will indeed become the rule of the mob, and the stable democratic order that flourished from the second world war onwards will look like a brief historical curiosity. ■

    • Manuel 24 January 2021 at 5:41 am Permalink

      nurturing democratic institutions: guarding against too much inequality, ensuring that voters have access to objective information, taming money in politics and reinforcing checks and balances. Otherwise the rule of the people will indeed become the rule of the mob, and the stable democratic order that flourished from the second world war onwards will look like a brief historical curiosity. ■

      no es la masa, el proletariado, lo peligroso en EEUU
      es la élite que ha degenerado en un fascismo light
      al coartar significativamente los derechos de 74
      Millones de personas que votaron por su opuesto, y no se
      Van a detener ahí. Estàn llenos de mucha pasion
      Mucho odio y le van a sacar todo el jugo posible a
      Esas pasiones de 81 millones de decrépitos dictadores.

      Vemos cuanto les dura ese combustible,
      Y como los 74 q tienen en frente se reagrupan
      Y contraatacan

      • Manuel 24 January 2021 at 5:42 am Permalink

        Veamos cuanto les dura ese combustible,
        Y como los 74 millones q tienen en frente se reagrupan
        Y contraatacan

        • Manuel 24 January 2021 at 5:59 am Permalink

          No debe ser el contraataque de mil cabezas
          Pero uno coordinado, astuto.
          De lo contrario servirá de justificación para los
          Excesos de los que sólo vamos teniendo un pequeño
          avance con las medidas violentas de estos
          Dictadores de los medios, la casa blanca y el
          Legislativo. Un proceso muy similar
          Al chavismo que ya lleva 22 años de “victorias”.
          Estos cabrones son los chavistas de Norteamérica
          Y vienen con su populismo, su gran voto popular,
          Con una ventaja de 7 millones, los medios mas importantes
          (Prensa, cine, tv, control sobre las redes sociales)
          a aliarse a mediano plazo con los partidos comunistas,
          Como ya lo han hecho con el Chino,
          Y tienen a gente como Maduro, Castro
          y millones de estúpidos como Norberto Fuentes
          Muy esperanzados

          • Manuel 24 January 2021 at 6:11 am Permalink

            del genio de los Padres Fundadores queda en pie
            El diseño general, por ahora:

            Ya suenan los tambores del Packing de la Suprema
            Y eliminacion del voto electoral.
            Que son apenas la primera fase del plan maestro
            De todos estos “populistas” “liberales”
            Totalitarios, fascistas.

            Empezaron generando gran poder por opinion
            Publica, conquistando todas las avenidas posibles:
            Medios y escuelas; y ya están sentados en el
            Trono, donde querían estar y ahora son imparables.

            Amárrense los cinturones

  5. Manuel 24 January 2021 at 9:39 am Permalink

    the technology titan maintained its monopoly in personal social-networking by systematically buying up potential competitors—notably Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.
    In its defence, Facebook said that the government “now wants a do-over”, which would, as the company has put it, send “a chilling warning to American business that no sale is ever final”. The FTC’s complaint fails to mention that the antitrust authorities cleared the Instagram and WhatsApp deals at the time.
    At the end, the authorities will probably try to nip Facebook-like arguments in the bud pre-emptively by stymieing attempts by powerful incumbents to swallow upstart competitors. Explosive stuff. ■

    • Manuel 24 January 2021 at 9:48 am Permalink

      esto es de una revista en una app

      No tengo enlace a eso

      Como no lo tengo a algo q me envian
      Por una app, o email, etc.

      Y no menciono la fuente algunas veces,
      Por falta de tiempo. Yo no vivo de esto
      Julian, es apenas un pasatiempo en el q
      Priorizo el flujo de ideas y si la fuente no es
      Parte importante, me la brinco si el mensaje contribuye
      A la discusión sin importar quien lo produjo

      Que me he brincado muchas prohibiciones? Sí.

      Para rendir culto a la educación del que alguna vez pueda
      Entender algo de lo que decimos. Para mí vale la
      Pena correr todos los riesgos. Es mi pasión.
      Viví 30 años en la censura, en las limitaciones,
      Lamentando esos dos monstruos, y ahí se sembró quizá
      Esta semilla

      • Manuel 24 January 2021 at 10:04 am Permalink

        y hay q aplaudir a CAM, o al q controla los comentarios acá,
        que no nos ha sacado
        Amén de las pocas docenas de mensajes “perdidos”

      • Manuel 24 January 2021 at 10:16 am Permalink

        si algo de lo q traigo quiere saber fuente
        Yo se la traigo

      • Manuel 24 January 2021 at 10:22 am Permalink

        me interesa ver q tienen q decir todas las partes,
        Pero uno filtros como todo el mundo,
        No puede uno lanzarse a la mar de nimiedades
        Que se publica, buscando una aguja en un pajar.
        Para eso hay filtros de fuentes importantes q se dedica
        A preelaborar un poco y le toca a uno tener el ojo
        Clínico para saber q te está vendiendo y cuanto
        Puede valer lo q te proponen esos filtros.

        Por ejemplo, el filtro de CAM se ha devaluado tanto
        Q ya sólo le leen los q desean escuchar lo mismo infinitamente,
        Vivir en esa burbuja q se hinche sin freno ni final

        • Manuel 24 January 2021 at 10:52 am Permalink

          ¿Como espera alguien que la masa mal instruida
          Abandonada, desplazada, viviendo en las cloacas
          De la sociedad comprenda siquiera un poco
          Como orientarse en lo que sucede a cada nivel?

          Ahora que han side separadas en guetos sociales,
          En hatos virtuales rojos de azules, ¿como quieren
          Que amplíen sus horizontes y aumente la empatía
          El sentido de pertenencia a un gobierno que se
          Pone del lado de los magnates de todas las industrias
          Para empobrecerlos en todos los sentidos y atrofiar
          La poca capacidad de discusión y análisis que les

          Este es el año esplendoroso al que rinde alabanzas
          Carlos Alberto Montaner, a los millones de monos
          Que atados de pies y manos, bien atados, luego
          Tiran a la mar y critican por no poder si quiera
          Mantenerse a floto o lidiar con la mas endeble
          Corriente que les recorra los cuerpos moribundos
          De ideas, raciocinio, paciencia, amor?

          • Julian Perez 24 January 2021 at 11:51 am Permalink

            Manuel, no jodas con lo del tiempo. Pegar el link lleva menos tiempo que pegar el texto. Yo solamente aspiro a que pegues las dos cosas para saber de donde viene el asunto y quizas ampliar si a uno le apetece hacerlo.

  6. Julian Perez 24 January 2021 at 11:53 am Permalink

    Veamos si Trump de verdad pudo sentar condiciones para que a Biden no le fuera tan facil joder a Taiwan. Parece que se la puso cruda en lo de deshacer lo del oriente medio.


    A lo mejor hay algunas “bobby traps” regadas por ahí y de las que aún no sabemos.

Leave a Reply