An eloquent, yet eclectic defense

In an editorial piece published Feb. 4, the Intenaional Herald Tribune, the global version of the New York Times, defends the record of Baltasar Garzon. This Spanish judge, well-known and respected by many for pursuing high-profile cases against, among others Pinochet, Argentinian generals, Basque terrorists and others, is now being prosecuted himself.

He is under investigation, due to the breaking of a post-Franco amnesty law, which is obviously outdated and unjust. The Franco era is long gone and these inquiries would not damage Spanish democracy or civil society. They would only serve justice and the memories of the tens of thousands who disappeared.

He is also under investigation in relation to two other politically sensitive cases, which are less clear-cut and most importantly, of minor historical influence, proportionally.

What the opinion-makers of this respectable news outlet forget to mention, however, in the defense of senor Garzon, is his attempt to file a case against six US officials that facilitated torture under the Bush administration and his investigation on the Guantanamo prison camp. Perhaps too sensitive for their readers, but certainly not less commendable.

True Colonialism

The Islas Malvinas will never stop being an area of contention. Argentina claims the archipelago taken by the British ever since Argentina came to be. The Falklands, as the British like to refer to them, are unalienable and rightfully Argentinian territory. The British, according to the Argentinian account, display an outdated, colonial attitude, and would do better to move into the 21st century.

This Argentinian discourse is a very strange one, however, as it is so easy to point out several hypocricies in the outlook of Buenos Aires. Firstly, the reason Argentine claims the islands is not cultural, ethnic. You will struggle hard to find a repressed Argentinian majority or even minority on these islands. The Argentinian claim puts it on the same level of entitlement to the islands as the French and the Spanish. In fact, it puts them in line behind them. Because they left footprints well before any 'Argentinian' ever came to be. The British were there before the Argentinians, as well. But they came back afterwards and left a population that has been dieing and giving birth on the islands for almost 200 years now. These people consider themselves British.

'But they don't originally belong there' Argentinians would claim. Well, no-one belongs on an uninhabited archipelago then. British or Argentinian. But the most curious part of this whole reasoning, is that Argentina uses a reasoning that can be turned against them even more easily. If they blame the British for appropriating uninhabited islands, they should perhaps not be so secure in their ownership of Argentina itself. A country robbed from under the feet of the native Mapuches, Charruas, Guaranies, ...

The lack of consideration given their flimsy claims, betray then what they really are: cheap populism. Efficient maybe, but no less reprehensible. Especially given the association of this discourse with the former dictatorship. Miss Kirchner should know better than promoting knee-jerk nationalism.

The Huntsman show

Mr. Huntsman isn't fooling anyone. Not even me. He never meant to seriously contend in these elections. He's banking on Romney losing to Obama. If not, he'll wait another 4 years. But he rather wouldn't. Huntsman is preparing his 2016 bid.

He -correctly- realizes that his name doesn't carry enough weight yet. He needs to promote his brand, and he's doing just that. In the most effective, grass-roots way possible. If he's not a marketing genius (or hired one), then he's on a lucky streak. The image he's been emanating is working wonders, especially with independents:

He's going at it alone. Who needs his billionaire father? In America, you have to make your own way, instead of buying it. Why on earth spend money that won't buy you anything (yet), when not spending it garners you sympathy? In these times of political gridlock, he is waiting for it to wear people out enough, to yearn for a straight-talking moderate, focusing on issues. Someone who sticks out. Someone who may not always hold their opinion, but at least you know he's not going to flip-flop on you. Someone like Jon Huntsman.

And you know what? It's kind of for me. I just hope you're actually 'that kind of guy', instead of cooking this up as a clever plan, raised by pundits and your father's marketeers.

Republican Rat Race

It is looking more and more like mr. Romney will become the candidate to face the incumbent. Every other candidate had their surge, but Romney has remained well ahead of the pack, globally. Iowa may not fall to him, but as mr. Pawlenty stated it is where they pick corn such as Huckabee, instead of presidents.

It appears all Romney has to do, is beat down on his closest antagonist (Gingrich for now), and he will be able to claim the prize. This seems strange, as a majority of republican voters would prefer not to see Romney on their ballot. The problem is that among the more rightist and religious wing of the party, the field is too divided. Paul, Perry, Santorum and Bachmann will have to share these votes until they start giving up. Most likely Bachmann will throw in the towel first. But the others may last longer, leaving the real fight between Gingrich and Romney very much biased towards the latter. Pawlenty, for now, is not even in this race, unless his New Hampshire miracle produces.

And while Romney accumulates more votes than the others proportionally, he can only hope for this standoff to last as long as possible, leaving him with a considerable advantage over the ones that remain in the race. Momentum will shift his way, as his advantage becomes clearer. Thus, many Republicans my find themselves voting for the lesser of two evils, next presidential elections.

Another opportunity for Russia

Throughout its tumultuous history Russia has went through a number of evolutions and revolutions that presented enormous opportunities to reinvent itself. One of the first of these defining moments could be interpreted to be the reforms by Peter I. Or the failed Decembrist revolt. But more importantly, the assassination of Alexander II, which thwarted the establishment of a duma, well before Nicholas II would be forced to accept one. There is no discussion that a well-established parliamentary system would have altered later evolutions, by funnelin griefs through political representatives. For instance the revolution of 1905 and both revolutions of 1917 could have played uit quite differently, if they would have even happened. We can add to this long list of defining moments the Civil War ensuing 1917 and eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union. Through every single one of these moments, hope glimmered and Russians have caught glimpses of freedom. Yet always, these hopes have been foiled, while undemocratic power-brokers came to the fore.

Today, it appears, yet again, things are starting to shift in Russia. For the first time in decades, a credibly opposition to current power-brokers in the Kremlin is taking shape. Let us hope that this time around, the Russian people seize the moment, remembering the weight of the history they have carry to this day. If there is a people that has had to endure unending suffering, it is the Russians. But few have so little to show for it, today.

Update top 10 crooks

We are glad to update our top 10 list with some happenings: number 2 and number 9 on the 2011 top ten list of crooks have deceased. A great loss for the afterlife, yet the living cannot help bu triumph.

Mr. Khadafi will not be missed by anyone. Concerning mr. Jong-Il, the only reason you would be missed, is if your son manages to perform even worse deeds, or for lack of the terror you sowed, people will try to fill the void by their own.

Proxy government

The markets are sly and very well adapted to hiding their tentacles. No rich consumer, producer or misappropriated hungry owner of goods produced on fertile Ethiopian soil ever knows the magical interaction underlying their ethically problematic exchanges. Not even the distributors or government agents pushing these policies have to realize the full scope of what they enact. Everyone has pieces of papers to hide behind, and beautiful policies of development.

It is therefore quite ironic, to see the markets turn against some of its most enthusiastic supporters of the last half century. Western governments, be they socialist, liberal or 'independent' are running the rat race, pushed to the brink by the turmoil in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And though the 'greatest common denominator' farce of American politics has long settled down in Europe, too, we can see how grand old political 'identities' melt away under the pressure.

No matter who gets elected, regardless of their identity and promises. It is official now: it is the market that rules us. It decides when we get up and when we go to sleep. What we eat, how long we eat it for. What we study, what is deemed 'valuable' (and isn't it beautiful that this word is such a double-edged sword, has gradually eloped its original meaning and has now turned on us) as a skill or as knowledge.

Whereas economy used to mean: oiko-nomia: the laws (or management) of the house. A 'rational' way to manage our household and patrimony as individuals, it has slowly encompassed ever greater wholes. It has now become a very efficient means for the mobilization of labour, though the goals are no longer subservient to our needs. Our needs have become subservient to its goals, which are ill-defined and quite irrational. There is the vain promise of progress, but what is progress but a very human goal? Who or what defines progress? Is it nowadays about nothing but novelty? About making more money in ever shorter spurts? Doesn't that go at the expense of the long-term efficiency of economic production itself?

It seems the only thing we can compare the current economic system with, is a virus. It spreads, multiplies, reproduces itself in ever more advanced models, to attain more control over its environment. But it is so wildly successful that it is choking its hosts: humanity and the planet. Ebola was a very dramatic disease, but because it was such a swift killer, it never lasted long beyond its initial outbreaks. It was not a smart disease. HIV is enormously more successful, as it takes its time to spread, then kill.

Will the economy prove to be a slow or a swift killer? Or will its hosts prove resilient enough to develop with it, as it becomes endemic, while the two learn to define and develop one another, as is the case in so many symbiotic relationships? I am most curious to find out.