Hasta siempre Comandante Chavez, Hasta la Victoria Siempre: Patria o Muerte ¡ Venceremos !

El presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, líder indiscutible de la Revolución Bolivariana, acumuló en su andar un camino que lo llevó desde Sabaneta, en estado Barinas, a la historia por el profundo cambio que impulsó en el país.

Nacido el 28 de Julio de 1954 en esa localidad de los llanos de Barinas y fallecido este martes en Caracas, fue el segundo de los seis hijos de Hugo de los Reyes Chávez y Elena Frías, ambos maestros de educación primaria.

Reconocido por una singular personalidad capaz de captar los más diversos sentimientos populares, recibió en su formación la influencia militar y al ingresar en una escuela de ese tipo en 1971.

Tras cuatro años de estudio, se graduó como subteniente y licenciado en Ciencias y Artes Militares e inició una carrera en la entonces Fuerza Armada Nacional, en la que alcanzó, en 1990, el grado de Teniente Coronel.

De manera adicional, este proceso le facilitó el conocimiento de los más recónditos sitios del país y la crítica situación en que sobrevivían millones de venezolanos.

Seguidor del pensamiento y la obra del Libertador, Simón Bolívar, Chávez realizó también estudios de postgrado en Ciencias Políticas, que estructuraron y sistematizaron sus tempranas inquietudes políticas y sociales.

Fueron precisamente esas inquietudes el origen de la fundación en 1982, junto con otros oficiales del cuerpo castrense, del Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200 (MBR200), en el entorno de una deteriorada situación sociopolítica en el país, que condujo, en 1989, a la explosión popular conocida como El Caracazo.

La Venezuela de los años 80 y 90 del pasado siglo se caracterizó por el agotamiento del modelo neoliberal instruido por el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) y entronizado por gobernantes venales y corruptos, que llenó el país de millones de pobres a pesar de las inmensas riquezas generadas por la explotación petrolera.

Es en ese escenario en el que lidera, el 4 de febrero de 1992, una rebelión cívico-militar contra el presidente de turno, Carlos Andrés Pérez, que terminó en un fracaso, pero con el “por ahora” pronunciado por Chávez al asumir públicamente la responsabilidad por esa acción, se convirtió en el punto de partida de un proceso político que cambiaría al país.

Por esos hechos, Chávez estuvo dos años en prisión, de donde salió fortalecido ideológica y políticamente, y entonces fundó el Movimiento V República.

Tras su liberación, comenzó un peregrinar social y político por todo el país, además de sumar a sus filas a estudiantes,

profesionales, pequeños y medianos empresarios, campesinos, cultores, pescadores, mineros, indígenas, obreros, mujeres, jóvenes, militares, dirigentes locales y a la casi totalidad de la dirigencia de la izquierda venezolana.

Todo ello bajo las banderas del rescate del pensamiento bolivariano y de la convocatoria a una Asamblea Constituyente para refundar el Estado, recuperar la soberanía popular y nacional, así como transformar la estructura de exclusión social de las grandes mayorías.

De esa forma, intervino en las elecciones presidenciales del 6 de diciembre de 1998, apoyado por los partidos Comunista (PCV), Patria Para Todos (PPT) y otros que mantenían entonces posiciones de izquierda.

En esos comicios, Hugo Chávez fue electo por el 56,2 por ciento de los votos válidos y se convirtió en el 47 presidente de Venezuela, apoyado por el voto popular con el entonces segundo más alto porcentaje alcanzado por un candidato presidencial en cuatro décadas.

Tras la toma de posesión, el 2 de febrero de 1999, los acontecimientos se sucedieron con inusitada rapidez.

Un referendo constituyente, la elaboración de una nueva Carta Magna en sustitución de la de 1961 y su aprobación por el Parlamento el 15 de diciembre, marcaron el primer año de gobierno y crearon las bases de un profundo proceso de reformas políticas, económicas y sociales que continúa en la actualidad.

En virtud de lo establecido por la nueva Constitución Bolivariana, fueron convocadas elecciones generales para el año siguiente, a fin de ratificar a todos los cargos de elección popular, incluyendo la Presidencia, y en esa cita Chávez fue ratificado al obtener el 59,76 por ciento de los sufragios.

Sin embargo, la batalla política era intensa, pues las medidas ejecutadas por el gobierno para afianzar la soberanía y consolidar la independencia, entre ellas la Ley de Hidrocarburos de 2001, dirigida a recuperar los recursos derivados del petróleo, soliviantaron en su contra a los sectores más acomodados del país, que contaron entonces -y ahora- con el respaldo de Estados Unidos.

El efímero golpe de Estado de abril de 2002 y el paro petrolero de finales de 2003 y principios de 2004, fueron los intentos más graves de la oligarquía venezolana, asociada a intereses foráneos, de tratar de librarse de Chávez y de recuperar el control del país, frustrados por la resistencia popular y de la mayor parte de los militares.

Al mismo tiempo, comenzaron a ejecutarse las misiones sociales, entre ellas, Barrio Adentro, para la atención médica gratuita de la población de menos recursos, y Mercal, surgida tras las carencias provocadas por el paro petrolero y dirigida a proveer alimentos a bajos precios a los venezolanos.

Tras superar el referendo revocatorio promovido por la oposición en 2004 y ser reelegido en los comicios presidenciales del 3 de diciembre de 2006, Chávez emprendió el período de gobierno 2007-2012 con un creciente apoyo de la mayor parte de la población, que lo ve como el líder que les sacó de la sempiterna exclusión y les cambió la vida.

Los comicios del 7 de octubre del 2012 llevaron a la reelección del mandatario para un nuevo periodo 2013-2019, con el respaldo del 55,07 por ciento de los electores al acumular ocho millones 191 mil 132 votos, en un proceso donde la participación llegó al 80,4 por ciento.

8 de agosto de 1998. El comandante Hugo Chávez Frías acompañado por su esposa, Marisabel, durante una gran marcha al inicio de la campaña electoral de los comicios presidenciales del 6 de diciembre de aquel año.
© AFP Bertrand Parres

2 de febrero 1999. El recién investido presidente de Venezuela por vez primera, se dirige al Congreso de Venezuela tras ganar las elecciones presidenciales del 6 de diciembre con un 56% de los votos.
© AFP Rodrigo Arangua

12 de octubre de 2001. El presidente de Venezuela le entrega un obsequio al Papa Juan Pablo II tras culminar la audiencia que mantuvieron en privado en el Vaticano.
© AFP Presidencia

14 de abril de 2002. Hugo Chávez regresa al palacio presidencial para reasumir la presidencia tras ser expulsado del país. El 11 de abril de 2002, en medio de protestas en contra del sistema socialista, su puesto fue ocupado por Pedro Carmona Estanga, titular de Fedecámaras, el principal gremio empresarial de Venezuela.
© AFP Rodrigo Arangua

11 de abril de 2004. Hugo Chávez con los miembros del Ejército en Maracaibo, a 500 kilómetros de Caracas.
© AFP Presidencia

15 de agosto de 2004. Chávez celebra la victoria del referendo revocatorio de su mandato con un 59% de los votos.
© AFP Luis Acosta

4 de diciembre de 2005. Elecciones legislativas. El oficialismo gana todos los cargos de la Asamblea Nacional (Parlamento).
© AFP Andrew Alvarez

03 de diciembre de 2006. Chávez vota durante las elecciones presidenciales, donde fue reelegido para su segundo mandato con un 62% de los votos.
© AFP Juan Barreto

21 de diciembre de 2006. Hugo Chávez firma acuerdos bilaterales con el presidente electo de Ecuador, Rafael Correa, en el palacio presidencial de Miraflores, en Caracas.
© AFP Presidencia

19 de agosto de 2007. Hugo Chávez graba una edición de su programa de televisión ‘Aló Presidente’.
© AFP Servicio de Prensa Presidencial / HO

31 de octubre de 2007. Hugo Chávez habla con su huésped, la modelo británica Naomi Campbell, antes de una ceremonia en el teatro Teresa Carreño de Caracas.
© AFP Juan Barreto

18 de noviembre de 2007. Chávez con su homólogo iraní, Mahmoud Ahmadineyad, durante la ceremonia de clausura de la cumbre de la OPEP en Riad.
© AFP Hassan Amar

30 de noviembre de 2007. Hugo Chávez besa la mano de una proponente suya durante una concentración en apoyo a las reformas constitucionales promovidas por su Gobierno.
© AFP Juan Barreto

8 de diciembre de 2007. El presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez con su homólogo bielorruso, Aleksandr Lukashenko, examinando una muestra de crudo pesado en la Faja del Orinoco, en el sureño estado de Anzoátegui, a 310 kilómetros de Caracas.

18 de diciembre de 2007. El presidente venezolano abraza a su homólogo boliviano, Evo Morales, durante la XXXIV Cumbre del Mercosur en Montevideo.
© AFP Pablo Porciuncula

6 de marzo de 2008. Chávez saluda afectuosamente a su homóloga argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, en el palacio presidencial de Miraflores, en Caracas.
© AFP Juan Barreto

25 de septiembre de 2008. Hugo Chávez con una réplica de un Tupolev TU-160 junto al entonces primer ministro y actual presidente ruso, Vladímir Putin, durante su reunión en Moscú.
© AFP Presidencia

18 de abril de 2009. Hugo Chávez entrega a su homólogo estadounidense, Barack Obama, el libro ‘Las venas abiertas de América Latina’ durante una reunión multilateral de la Cumbre de las Américas en Puerto España, Trinidad y Tobago.
© AFP Jim Watson

11 de febrero de 2010. Hugo Chávez se prepara para lanzar una pelota durante un partido de softball con jugadores profesionales venezolanos en Caracas.
© AFP Juan Barreto

21 de septiembre de 2010. Hugo Chávez y los candidatos a la Asamblea Nacional del gobernante Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) en la víspera de las legislativas, donde el oficialismo logró la mayoría de los escaños.
© AFP

15 de octubre de 2010. Hugo Chávez entrega unos regalos a Dmitri Medvédev, ex presidente de Rusia (2008-2012) y actual primer ministro, durante una conferencia de prensa celebrada en el Kremlin.
© RIA Novosti Mikhail Klimentyev

31 de marzo de 2011. Hugo Chávez junto con su homólogo boliviano, Evo Morales, saluda a la gente durante su visita al país andino.
© AFP Aizar Raldes

6 de junio de 2011. Hugo Chávez y la presidenta de Brasil, Dilma Rousseff, durante una reunión en el Palacio de Planalto, en Brasil.
© AFP Evaristo SA

23 de julio de 2011. Maradona, Fidel y Chávez. Foto: Estudios Revolución

21 de julio de 2012. Hugo Chávez saluda a sus partidarios durante un acto de campaña electoral para las presidenciales del 7 de octubre, en las que fue reelegido.
© AFP

27 de agosto de 2012. Chávez visita el Hospital de Paraguaná, donde están ingresadas las personas heridas en la explosión de la refinería de petróleo Amuay.
© AFP Presidencia

2012. Concluysión de visita a Cuba de Chávez, sostuvo encuentros con Fidel y Raúl

20 de septiembre de 2012. Hugo Chávez toca la guitarra durante un Consejo de Ministros en el palacio presidencial de Miraflores en Caracas.
© AFP Presidencia

24 de septiembre de 2012. Hugo Chávez “noquea” a la oposición durante un acto de campaña electoral en Acarigua (noroeste de Venezuela).
© AFP Juan Barreto

3 de octubre de 2012. Hugo Chávez baila durante un acto de campaña electoral en Maracay.
© AFP Juan Barreto

7 de octubre de 2012. Hugo Chávez saluda a sus partidarios tras recibir la noticia de su reelección con el 54,42% de los votos, derrotando así al principal candidato opositor, Henrique Capriles, que obtuvo el 44,47%.
© AFP Juan Barreto

(Con información de Prensa Latina/RT)

Harlem Reacts to "Harlem Shake" Videos

Street interviews with members of the Harlem community, and their views about the popular 'Harlem Skake' video trend.

Ansel Adams, Photographer (1958) narrated by Beaumont Newhall

The Science of Pornography Addiction (SFW)

Isn't it time to respect Venezuela's democracy?

By Samuel Moncada, Special to CNN

February 18, 2013 -- Updated 1218 GMT (2018 HKT)

Over the past decade, all sorts of predictions have been made, ranging from catastrophic election defeats to the implosion of the Venezuelan economy. But the fact these predictions have failed to materialize has not deterred many of Venezuela's most fervent critics in their quest to engineer a constant and misleading narrative of impending disaster.

The reality is that ever since President Hugo Chavez was first elected, Venezuela has defied these negative predictions and brought unprecedented social progress to the country over the last 14 years. Since 2004 poverty has been reduced by half andextreme poverty has been cut by 70%. University enrolment has doubled, entitlement to public pensions has tripled, and access to health care and all levels of education have been dramatically expanded.

Venezuela now has the lowest levels of economic inequality of any Latin American country as measured by the Gini coefficient. Our country has already achieved many of the Millennium Development Goals, and is well on target to achieve all eight by the 2015 deadline.

This progress has been achieved by using Venezuela's vast oil revenues to transform the lives of ordinary people. The sheer scale of our oil reserves -- the world's largest -- guarantees the complete sustainability of the model in which the country's resources are used to stimulate growth in the economy and aid development.

But Chavez's most significant achievement has been to trigger the awakening and empowerment of the majority. A majority of Venezuelans have seen vast improvements in their living standards and, as a consequence, they have continued to defend their interests at the ballot box.

The Venezuelan people are very clear about what they want.President Chavez was re-elected in October 2012 with 54% of the vote in an election that boasted an 81% turnout. The Venezuelan people showed their support for the government again in December 2012 in the gubernatorial elections, which saw Chavez's political party win 20 out of 23 states.

Governments in Europe and other parts of the world could only dream of these levels of support after 14 years in power. This shows that social progress in Venezuela has been consolidated and that there is a desire to further expand this progress.

In the coming years, the Venezuelan government will continue to respond to the needs of the Venezuelan people. Hundreds of thousands of new homes have been built over the last two years which have not only greatly improved living standards but also provided jobs and contributed to a boom in the construction industry. The government is well on its way to meeting its target of building three million new homes by 2019.

While many economies around the world are shrinking, theVenezuelan economy grew by 5.5% in 2012. Against the backdrop of a continuing international financial crisis, commerce in Venezuela grew by 9.2% and communications by 7.2%, manufacturing grew by 2.1% and the oil sector grew by 1.4% -- making Venezuela one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America.

At a time when many countries are attacking the rights of the most vulnerable sectors of society, Venezuela is providing ever greater protection for low-income senior citizens and single-parent families with younger children or disabled dependents.

The failed development models of previous governments condemned millions of Venezuelans to poverty. Before the election of Chavez in 1998, Venezuela suffered years of falling GDP. The country had one of the worst economic records in the world -- a record that led to mass social unrest and violent military crackdowns.

Venezuela will continue on its path of social progress and empowering ordinary citizens. The greatest hope for the future is the people know that they alone hold the power to determine the direction the country will take.

After so many failed predictions, isn't it time to respect Venezuela's democracy and the will of the people?

A Democratic Display in the Center of the World

Rafael Correa, An Anti-Obama in Ecuador?

by ADAM CHIMIENTI AND CARMEN L. ARIAS

Latin American elections always seem to get it these days. Western journalists cannot deny an opportunity to pass without throwing some stones. So it was hardly surprising when the words “dictator”(Reuters, BBC) and “handouts”(USA Today, CBS News) were thrown into the hastily assembled reports on the election in “tiny”, read: insignificant,[i] Ecuador and the results turned out to be heavily in favor of the “anti-American” candidate.

It’s interesting to look at each of these terms to see the duplicitous nature of Western reporting. For example, the word dictator should hardly apply to Rafael Correa, the Ecuadorian President comfortably reelected. That is unless you enjoy the use of hyperbole for dramatic effect. As they say, if it bleeds… and Latin American blood is always especially crimson in the grey of the New York Times and its counterparts. Except President Correa in Ecuador has killed no one. He has started zero wars, tortured or killed zero citizens, and while he may have a “pugnacious” (Reuters again) attitude how else could one realistically expect a politician to survive in the 21st century.

Here’s what you need to know. Rafael Correa was a nobody on the political scene in Ecuador when George W. Bush was being inaugurated for the second time in Washington 8 years ago. I know. It’s not polite to bring up such ugly episodes in US history but allow me to refresh your memory for a second. Bush just beat the current Secretary of State John Kerry in the November election and presumed he had a mandate. He was talking about going after Social Security. The left, right and center were paying close attention. It turns out though, that Bush’s victory was an incredibly narrow one, with allegations of strange occurrences in Ohio, people being forced to wait in line for hours around the country and corporations spending ever more on getting their representatives elected.[ii] All in all, the result was a US democracy looking less and less like an established fact, and more and more like some kind of disturbing case of regression back into the “good old days” of black, brown, poor, and those with some form of exploitable vulnerability being prevented from voting because they were black, brown, poor or vulnerable. No matter though. Both Kerry and Bush were rather familiar politicians, both extremely wealthy, both went to Yale and both even played in the same dark dungeons there.[iii] How nice!

Meanwhile, Rafael Correa was a nobody on the Ecuadorian political scene back then. Journalists would have found no reason to write about him, negatively or otherwise. Then, the Ecuadorian people had grown tired of dirty politics and politicians once and for all it seemed. Various social groups came together including natives from the highlands and lowlands and leftists who were inspired by Chavez in Venezuela, Lula in Brazil, Kirchner in Argentina, and Morales in Bolivia. They decided to throw out a president they called Sucio (Dirty) Lucio. Lucio Gutierrez was an alright guy in their eyes back in the year 2000 when he was in military fatigues and had decided to lend his hand to the social movements that were stirred up by a terrible economic crisis that featured dollarization of the economy. If you live in the US and wondered what happened to all your dirty old dollar bills, then dollarization could help you understand.

In 1999, the country was told by economists from the US and those benevolent monetary institutions, the IMF and World Bank, that its sucre currency was especially filthy lucre and needed to be thrown out. In turn, they could start using the US dollar and be happier for it. One problem though was that anyone with any small amount of savings in the bank were practically wiped out. So along came Sucio Lucio with some supporters behind him, ready to say ¡Ya Basta! but it turned out that he was only playing nice. Actually, Sucio Lucio was destined for bigger and better things than low or highland “Indians”. He had a date with George W. from Yale. How exciting!

Eventually, the people of Ecuador were stirred up once again and decided to take to the streets one more time. The legislature would have to take decisive action. The rest, as they say, is history. Lucio Gutierrez would be removed from office, albeit in a very civilized way, and his vice President Alfredo Palacio would take over. The man who would temporarily be in charge of the government in Quito was a medical doctor by trade. He would reportedly told BBC Journalist Greg Palast, our former boss, that if the IMF really made the Andean country pay the debt they said Ecuador owed, then they would not survive. This story isn’t about him though. It’s about the colorful and confident, if not pugnacious, finance minister he chose for a brief stint in 2005. This man subscribed to the views of Ha Joon Chang and other heterodox economists who pointed out that the West was “kicking away the ladder” when it came to advice on how to run an economy. His name was Rafael Correa!

Correa would then go on to run for president himself and surprise everyone by whipping the ever-persistent banana magnate and #1 wealthiest man in the country. Alvaro Noboa is the man behind Bonita bananas and he believed Ecuador should proudly continue in the path of the banana republicanism that it was known for. He felt so strongly about this that he was to run for president five times and not be deterred by his lack of success.[iv] Correa disagreed and so did the Ecuadorian people. The West was, wait for it now, flabbergasted. How could this be? Oh, that’s right! It was because Latin Americans like to elect populists who in turn like to screw up economies, and then who like to head for Miami or Zurich or some other safe haven. So the story goes.

Correa was not your typical populist in the sense that he actually knew a bit about what he was doing. He had studied in the US but he didn’t leave with tears in eyes, saying he’ll never forget those wonderful Yankees. He came back home like many Ecuadorians would love to do, and he did so with a plan. [Note: the country’s economy has been tragically dependent on remissions, with Ecuadorian migrants propping up the likes of Western Union and filling the squares of Madrid, Rome and other European cities on Sunday to celebrate their only day off.]

Correa’s plan was to save the economy of Ecuador by putting into place the economic programs so rarely enacted but superior in every way to the IMF Structural Adjustment Plans (SAPs) that economists love to talk about. There would be no more borrowing to pay off loans. There would be no more privatizing to place premiums on necessities such as water, electricity, gas and oil. Correa would reverse course and, six years later, Ecuador is celebrating their democracy with pride. While I do not wish to be overzealous and depict a knight in shining armour, most of the people are very happy with their president. They respect him and they even care about politics with him at the helm. This includes young and the old, the poor and the middle class, the black, brown and white.

I know. You’re thinking I’ve heard all this before. Obama was standing in DC reciting his passionate inaugural speech only weeks ago. Tears, though not as many as in 2008, were flowing and Obama supporters were saying it was time to get busy. Electoral politics is a sham but let’s give the Ecuadorian people and the government some credit here. The election appeared well-organized and peaceful. The winner was an incumbent with a plan to continue to try to revitalize the economy by giving ordinary everyday people a chance at living a life devoid of the desperation that comes with deep impoverishment. They are investing in social programs like healthcare, education, grassroots cooperatives, and even trying to mitigate serious environmental problems. In an article in The Guardian, the Indian economist Jayati Ghosh has called Ecuador the most radical and exciting place on earth as a result.[v]

Since Correa first took office in early 2007, he got a lot of interesting things done. He defaulted on Ecuador’s debt (that his predecessor swore would be the death of the country).[vi] He kept his campaign promise to evict the United States military from their base at Manta. He set about correcting some serious problems with the constitution by leading a team to draft a new one. This new constitution would be the first to provide rights to the environment, that is, rivers, lakes, and forests in Ecuador have rights and can be legally defended. He also sponsored a plan to keep the oil in the soil with the Yasuni Initiative, a plan to attract investors whose funds would be used to not extract oil.[vii] The plan and the constitution were hailed as trailblazing. Imagine all that from a dimunitive nation like Ecuador. He also declared solidarity with the plaintiffs in the Amazon against a shameless US corporation[viii] (Shell, now Chevron), whose refusal to act with minimal responsibility when drilling for oil and to clean up after itself has led to serious problems with the land and its inhabitants.[ix] He even invited Julian Assange to come down and live, so he could be sheltered from those countries (Sweden, Australia, the US) willing to destroy liberties to avoid the frightening idea of the free flow of information.

This is not to say that all is rosy. There are plenty of problems that must be dealt with. As in Venezuela and the United States, crime is a serious problem. People are worried about the executive branch having too much power. Mining in the country is deemed necessary by the government but the people that live in areas that will be affected need to have a seat at the table. Furthermore, Correa’s style can offend. His former ally, Alberto Acosta, broke with him because he feared that the president’s ego and quest for power was becoming too much. The progressive constitution the country’s assembly had written was being manipulated by the president in a quest to maintain and increase his power. He was backing down on some of the promises he made about the environment and was increasingly intolerant of dissent. Acosta was challenging him from the left and we can hope that the pressure he applies will keep the president in check and even set agendas like third parties should be able to do. Acosta, who called Correa “the sun-king of the 21st century” claiming that he controls everything,[x] appeared not to have a significant following in the election with only 3.4% of the vote, less than the banana magnate Noboa and Sucio Lucio Gutierrez (yes, both really did run again). His main competition, Lasso with around 22.5% of the vote, was a banker and it was really no contest at all.

It does seem that Correa has broken a lot less promises than President Obama. It also appears that he is probably not going to lock up whistleblowers, kill his own citizens, make a mockery of the citizens’ increasingly undermined civil liberties invade countries for “humanitarian purposes” like Bush and Obama have done. Rather, it seems like he is willing to stand up and count when it matters, like when an oil company poisons a significant portion of the country (BP flavored shrimp anyone?) or when bankers try to get their way by ruthlessly insisting that austerity simply must be carried out. There is an alternative and there shall always be one. Promises should be kept sometimes at least. ¡Viva la revolucion ciudadana in Ecuador and everywhere!

Adam Chimienti is a teacher and a doctoral student originally from New York. He can be reached at ajchimienti@gmail.com. Carmen L. Arias can be reached at karmenarias@gmail.com

Notes
[i] The Washington Post and Daily Mail, amongst others, recently used the adjective tiny, to describe Ecuador, roughly the size of Nevada.

[ii] For a summary of these problems that for the most part have yet to remedied see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html

[iii] Remember Skull and Bones: see this 60 Minutes “Skull and Bones,” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-576332.html

[iv] Alvaro Noboa likes to fashion himself as a philantropist http://www.alvaronoboa.org/2011/03/alvaro-noboa-helping-hand.html but critics contend that he uses the social funds for political purposes when running for office according to his Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_Noboa#cite_note-9. Human Rights Watch has cited him for widespread abuse of labor and for child labor. See http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/04/24/ecuador-widespread-labor-abuse-banana-plantations

[v] Jayati Ghosh. “Could Ecuador be the most radical and exciting place on earth?” The Guardian 19 January 2012 online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/19/ecuador-radical-exciting-place, accessed 18 June 2012.

[vi] For more on the default and the reasoning behind it see Neil Watkins and Sarah Anders. “Ecuador’s Debt Default,” Foreign Policy in Focus December 15, 2008 at http://www.ipsdc.org/articles/ecuadors_debt_default_exposing_a_gap_in_the_global_financial_architecture accessed online on 18 May 2012 and an article titled “Ecuador declares foreign debt illegitimate,” published as an entry in the series Project Censored. Accessed online at http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/10-ecuador-declares-foreign-debt-illegitimate/

[vii] John Vidal. “Can Oil Save the Rainforest?” 19 January 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/20/can-oil-save-the-rainforest, accessed 19 January 2013.

[viii] According to a transcript from an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! on 29 June 2009, http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/29/ecuadoran_president_rafael_correa_on_global, accessed on 21 September 2012.

[ix] William Langeweische. “Jungle Law,” Vanity Fair May 2007, http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/texaco200705, accessed 1 October 2012.

[x] See BBC News Election coverage http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21379601

Correa: cuatro lecciones de su victoria

Correa: cuatro lecciones de su victoria

Ecuador: cuatro lecciones de una victoria aplastante

 (Por Atilio A. Boron) La arrasadora victoria de Rafael Correa, con un porcentaje de votos y una diferencia entre él y su más inmediato contendiente que ya hubieran querido tener Obama, Hollande, Rajoy, entre  otros, deja algunas lecciones que es conveniente recapitular.  

    Primero y lo más obvio: la ratificación del mandato popular para seguir por el camino trazado pero, como dijo Correa en su conferencia de prensa,  avanzando más rápida y profundamente. Sabe el re-electo presidente que los próximos cuatro años serán cruciales para asegurar la irreversibilidad de las reformas que, al cabo de diez años de gestión, habrán concluido con la refundación de un Ecuador mejor, más justo y más sustentable. Un Ecuador en donde la diversidad no sea fuente de desigualdad.  En la conferencia de prensa ya aludida dijo textualmente: “o cambiamos ahora al país o no lo cambiamos más”. El proyecto de crear un orden social basado en el socialismo delsumak kawsay, el “buen vivir” de nuestros pueblos originarios, exige actuar con rapidez y determinación. Pero esto también lo saben la derecha vernácula y el imperialismo, y por eso se puede pronosticar que van a redoblar sus esfuerzos para evitar la consolidación del proceso de la “Revolución Ciudadana.”

    Segunda lección: que si un gobierno obedece al mandato popular y produce políticas públicas que benefician a las grandes mayorías nacionales –que al fin y al cabo de eso trata la democracia- la lealtad del electorado puede darse por segura. La manipulación de las oligarquías mediáticas, la conspiración de las clases dominantes y las estratagemas del imperialismo se estrellan contra el muro de la fidelidad popular ante un gobierno fiel a sus mandatos.

     Tercero, y como corolario de lo anterior, el aplastante triunfo de Correa demuestra que la conformista tesis tan común en el pensamiento político convencional, a saber: que “el poder desgasta”, sólo es válida en democracia cuando el poder se ejerce en beneficio de las minorías adineradas o cuando los procesos de transformación social pierden espesor, titubean y terminan por detenerse. Al paralizarse, al abandonar el impulso transformador, se encaminan hacia su propia destrucción. Su condición de viabilidad es la permanente profundización y aceleración del proceso reformista. Pero cuando se gobierna teniendo a la vista el bienestar de las víctimas del sistema pasa lo que ocurrió ayer en Ecuador: si en la presidencial del 2009 Correa ganó en la primera vuelta con el 51 por ciento de los votos, ayer lo hizo, con el recuento existente al momento de escribir esta nota (un 25 por ciento de los votos escrutados) con el 57 por ciento. En lugar de “desgaste”, consolidación y acrecentamiento del poder residencial.

     

Cuarto y último, con esta elección se supera la parálisis decisional generada por una Asamblea Nacional que se opuso con intransigencia a algunas de las más importantes iniciativas propuestas por Correa. Si bien hay pocas cifras disponibles al respecto no caben dudas de que Alianza PAIS tendrá la mayoría absoluta de los asambleistas y con posibilidades de alcanzar una representación parlamentaria que le permita contar con una mayoría calificada de dos tercios. Una Asamblea Nacional que acompañe el proceso de cambios tendría que abocarse de inmediato a elaborar y sancionar la Ley Orgánica de Comunicación, un nuevo Código Ambiental, la Ley de Aguas (esencial para la reforma agraria) entre otras piezas legislativas de fundamental importancia. La reconfiguración del mapa sociopolítico de la Asamblea Nacional permitirá remover los obstáculos que, hasta ahora, impidieron el avance en algunos frentes estratégicos del proceso de construcción de una nueva sociedad.

      Con el triunfo de Correa, la reciente victoria de Hugo Chávez en Venezuela y la previsible ratificación del mandato popular a favor de Evo Morales en Bolivia el núcleo duro del “giro a la izquierda” experimentado por América Latina a comienzos de siglo queda notablemente fortalecido, ejerciendo un influjo favorable sobre los procesos en curso en países como Argentina, Brasil y Uruguay. Conclusión: los tiempos han cambiado. La ratificación plebiscitaria de un presidente que lideró  un formidable proceso de cambios sociales y económicos; que apuesta sin reservas -y trabaja para- la integración latinoamericana; que desafió al imperio incorporando su país al ALBA y que puso fin a la presencia estadounidense en la base de Manta; que realizó una ejemplar auditoría de la deuda externa reduciendo significativamente su monto; que le otorga asilo a Julian Assange y que retira al Ecuador del CIADI no es algo que se vea todos los días. Hay una gran razón para celebrar. ¡Felicitaciones Rafael Correa, salud Ecuador!          

fuente: http://www.atilioboron.com.ar/

Lichtenstein. A Retrospective. Tate Modern, London

el criticon recortado: VECINO, de Argenis Mills

el criticon recortado: VECINO, de Argenis Mills: Argenis Mills · 2011 · Color · 11’05''


Argenis Mills · 2011 · Color · 11’05''

En un único espacio y con un único personaje presente (y otro ausente),  Mills consigue elaborar un ambiente suficientemente pavoroso pare recrear la angustia de una persona ante el miedo.

A pesar de que sea el ruido  uno de los elementos inherente en todo el cortometraje, apenas es perceptible el sonido en toda la película, funcionando la dicotomía sonido-silencio hasta el extremo de que, el propio espectador, es consciente, hacia el final del cortometraje de sus propios ruidos.

Oscura (con una gran fotografía), kafkiana (tanto por tema como por ciertos guiños) y de un agobio psicológico (digno de Funny games), la película de Mills consigue en poco más de 10 minutos crear un película de terror psicológico de alta altura.

Microsoft's "Scroogled" Gmail ad

Israel in Syria

By As'ad AbuKhalil - Mon, 2013-02-04 18:16- Angry Corner

It is abundantly clear that Israel has been involved in every Arab (and several non-Arab) civil and inter-state wars over the decades. There is hardly a civil war in which Israel was not criminally involved on the side of the most reactionary party. From Yemen to Lebanon, Jordan, Sudan, Western Sahara, Oman and Iraq, Israel has consistently involved itself – usually on the side of a repressive regime, or a repressive army or militia. Israel has been involved in the affairs of Lebanon since the 1950s, at least.

Israel has also been involved in Syrian affairs for decades. The story of Elie Cohen has been told too many times, and the failure of Cohen – it is rarely mentioned in the Western heroic portrayal of him that he was after all caught, which is not the ultimate prize for any spy – has been covered up in all those pro-Israeli movies and books. Cohen basically opened a brothel in Damascus on behalf of the Mossad, and hoped that drunken officers and low-level government clerks would open up late into the night. It has never been established that Cohen really obtained crucial secrets as was claimed. And Arab enemies of Amin Hafiz [leader of the 1963 coup that brought the Baath party to power in Syria and subsequent president] and Israeli propagandists both promoted the false story about links between Hafiz and Cohen.

Israel, of course, regards the eruption of civil war in any Arab country as a golden opportunity to enter the scene, usually with the assistance of one of the two sides of the conflict. Syria has not been as safe as Lebanon has been for Israeli espionage, but this may soon change. There are already Western media reports about the arrival of Mossad terrorists in Syria, through the entrances that are run by Turkey and their client, the Free Syrian Army. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has had direct and indirect relations with Israel for years. They have been allies of the Jordanian King Hussein (by his own admission in a famous televised speech that Hafez al-Assad compelled him to make) and of the pro-Israeli right-wing militias in Lebanon during the civil war. Israeli weapons reached the Muslim Brotherhood militias through the Phalanges in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

It is too early to write about the Israeli role in the Syrian conflict but American officials – for purely domestic reasons – are quite transparent that Israel is consulted on every Western decision concerning Syria. In fact, the Israeli factor may be behind the American preference for the preservation of the Syrian regime, but without Bashar al-Assad. Israel remains unclear whether it wants a change of regime or not, although the proliferation of radical Islamist groups in Syria may have made Israel nervous, and Israel may have pressured the US to abstain from delivering shipments of arms to Syria. Israel, however, may be supporting certain elements of the armed opposition groups in order to gain a foothold among them.

The recent Israeli attack on Syria is not its first, and it came on the heels of the Israeli bombings of Sudan, and Gaza and the West Bank in Palestine. The objective of the Israeli bombing is not clear and the Syrian regime is typically circumspect about the Israeli target or targets. The Syrian regime typically resorted to its language about waiting to pinpoint the “time and place” of Syria and said – yet again – that it reserves the right to respond to Israeli aggression. There was little condemnation from the side of the exile Syrian opposition, despite whispered mumblings here and there and some effortful words by a few individuals who claimed that they are not happy about the Israeli bombing (the lip service that the Syrian March 14 movement pays to the cause of enmity towards Israel is a replica of the Lebanese March 14 version).

And the Syrian regime, despite its pathetic lack of a response to past acts of Israeli aggression against Syria, is now in a more difficult position. If it does not act in response to Israeli aggression, it will be quite embarrassing for the regime to justify the use of fighter jets and helicopter gunships in its internal conflict (for purposes of regime preservation), but not for defending Syrian territory against Israeli attacks. The Syrian army, which has by and large remained loyal to the regime, could face major defections in protest against this regime reluctance. But if the regime responds to Israeli attacks, Israel can inflict severe damage to the military power of the regime which is needed to protect the regime. Either way, the regime could suffer, although it would change the contours of the conflict if it were to respond against Israel in a major way.

Israel must be nervous as the earth all around it shakes vigorously. The region today is quite different from the quiet environment that Israel has been accustomed to since the US and Sadat removed the Egyptian army from the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the changes in the region are not complete and the earth will continue to shake until some form of political or maybe revolutionary transformation takes shape. It is not easy to predict the final outcome, but it is possible to predict that the region will increasingly look unsafe for Israeli occupation and aggression. That in itself is good news.

Irving Harper: "Paper is a versatile medium"

Aerial Photographs of Tulip Fields in the Netherlands by Normann Szkop

Abstract rainbows of color fill the landscape in these beautiful photos by French photographer Normann Szkop (nsfw-ish) who hopped in a Cesna with pilot Claython Pender to soar above the tulip fields in Anna Paulowna, a town in North Holland. Collectively, the millions of neatly planted flowers create sprawling patterns and designs that tourists flock to witness with their own eyes every season. See the entire 100+ photograph set over on Flickr. (via Colossal)