lunes, diciembre 31, 2007


Despues de oir a los tertulianos de la SER hablar de Pakistan, ahora todos son expertos de la leche en Pakistan, me gustaria dejaros un articulo excepcional de Barry Rubin, que explica que es lo que pasa en Pakistan y en Oriente Medio y PORQUE:

Much will be said about Benazir Bhutto's assassination; little will be understood about what it truly means. I'm not speaking here about Pakistan, of course, as important as that country is, but rather the lesson - as if we needed any more - for that broad Middle East which begins in Pakistan and ends on the Atlantic Ocean coast.

The following is a true story. Back in 1946, an American diplomat asked an Iranian editor why his newspaper angrily criticized the United States but never the Soviet Union. The Iranian said it was obvious. "The Russians," he said, "they kill people."

A dozen years earlier, in 1933, Iraqi official Sami Shawkat gave a talk which became one of the most famous texts of Arab nationalism. "There is something more important than money and learning for preserving the honor of a nation and for keeping humiliation at bay," he stated. "That is strength... strength, as I use the word here, means to excel in the Profession of Death."

What, you might ask, was Shawkat's own profession? He was director-general of Iraq's Ministry of Education. This was how young people were to be taught and directed; this is where Saddam Hussein came from. Seventy-five years later, the subsequent history of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world shows just how well Shawkat did his job.

September 11 in the United States; the Bali bombing for Australia; the tube bombing for Britain; the commuter train bombing for Spain, these were all merely byproducts of this pathology. The pathology in question is not Western policy toward the Middle East but rather Middle Eastern policy toward the Middle East.

WHEN I read Shawkat's words as a student, the phrase "profession of death," which gave his article its title, struck me as a pun. On one hand, the word "profession" meant "career." To be a killer - note well that Shawkat was not talking specifically about soldiers, those who fight, but rather those who murder - was the highest calling of all. It was more important than being a teacher, who forms character; more important than being a businessperson, who enriches his country; more important than being a doctor who preserves the life of fellow-citizens.

Destruction was a higher calling than construction. And, for sure, in the Arabic-speaking world what has been reaped is what has been sowed.

But, also, the word "profession" here reminds me of "to profess," or "to preach." When the greatest value for an educator is to preach and glorify death, what kind of ideology, what kind of society, what kind of values, does such a priority produce? Look and see.

LIKE CHILDREN playing with dynamite, Western intellectuals, journalists and diplomats fantasize that they are achieving results in the Middle East with their words, promises, apologies, money and concessions. Yet how can such innocents cope despite - or perhaps because of - all their good intentions with polities and societies whose basic ruling ethos is that of the serial killer?

And what can be achieved when those who are the most forward-looking and most creative, who want to break with the ideas and methods creating a disastrous mess, the stagnant system which characterizes so much of the Middle East, are systematically murdered?

Read the roll: king Abdullah of Jordan, president Anwar Sadat of Egypt, former prime minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon, bold author Farouk Fawda in Egypt, Iraqi Sunnis who dare seek compromise, Palestinian moderates, Algerian modernists, and thousands of women who seek a moderate degree of freedom.

The radicals are right: Dying is a disincentive. And for every one killed, how many thousands give in; and for every one threatened, how many hundreds give in?

Seventy-five years after Shawkat, Hamas television teaches Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip that their highest aspiration should be to become a suicide bomber, with success measured by how many Jews are killed. And, by the way, the Palestinian Authority's television in the West Bank sends a similar message, albeit not quite as often.

Will billions of dollars in aid to the PA change anything when the men with the guns take what they want? Are PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, respectively a timid bureaucrat and a well-meaning economist, going to take a bullet for lifting one finger to get a compromise peace with Israel? How are you going to get a government of national conciliation in Iraq when the insurgents have shown they can gun down any Sunni politician or cleric who steps out of line?

THE CURRENT supporters of the Lebanese government are probably the bravest politicians in the Arabic-speaking world, men willing to defy death. But how can they stand firm when Western governments rush to engage with the Syrian government that murder them, and Western media proclaim the moderation of a Damascus ruler who systematically kills those who oppose him?

Can anyone really expect a stable society capable of progress in Pakistan when a large majority of the population expresses admiration for Bin Laden? And what about the Saudi system where, as one local writer put it, the big Osama put into practice what the little Osama learned in a Saudi school?

Get it? The radical forces in the region are not expecting to retain or gain power by negotiating, compromising, or being better understood. They believe they are going to shoot their way into power or, just as good, accept the surrender of those they have intimidated.

That is why so much of the Western analysis and strategies for dealing with the region are a bad joke. Osama bin Laden understands that, as he once said, people are going to back the strongest horse in the race. Yet according to all too many people in the Western elites, the way to win is to be the nicest horse.

DOESN'T THIS assessment sound terribly depressing and hopeless? Well, yes and no.

Radical Islamists like to proclaim that they will triumph because they love death while their enemies - that is, soon-to-be-victims - love life. But the Islamists need to be careful what they wish for, though, because they will probably get it.

For those who love death, the reward is death. For those who love life, the outcomes include decent educational systems, living standards, individual rights, and strong economic systems.

All these things, and others that go along with them, are what really produce strength. And isn't it interesting that, contrary to Shawkat, the nations that put the priority on these things enjoy far more honor and suffer far less humiliation than happens with his model.

The profession of death has wrecked most Middle Eastern societies. But it has never succeeded in defeating a free society. It is not an effective tactic for destroying others, only for devastating one's own people.

Who killed Benazir Bhutto? The Sami Shawkat philosophy: alike in its Arab nationalist, Islamist, and Pakistani authoritarian versions, which dominate Middle East politics.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center ( at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. His latest book is The Truth About Syria

sábado, diciembre 29, 2007


"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."


lunes, diciembre 24, 2007


En Oriente Medio, un poco mas de lo mismo, pero el tio que escribe ahora para El Pais desde Jerusalem parece que se entera un poco mas.

El depuesto primer ministro Haniya, que gobierna Gaza desde hace medio año, cuando los milicianos de Hamás le arrebataron el poder al presidente palestino, Mahmud Abbas, ofreció la tregua después de varios reveses sufridos por los milicianos, veinte de los cuales, entre estos el jefe de la Yihad Islámica, murieron la semana pasada en ataques de la aviación y del Ejército israelí.

Efectivamente la tregua se ofrece no por buena voluntad sino porque las estan pasando putas. Y es que esto tan Navideño de paz a los hombres de buena voluntad no se aplica aqui, basicamente porque esta gentuza no tiene buena voluntad, solo entiende el lenguaje de la hostias y solo respetan la fuerza.

Aun recuerdo los tiempos en 2002 cuando habia un atentado casi semanal en Israel con 15 o 20 muertos cada vez. Hasta que llego el punto en que se cansaron de paños calientes, reinvadieron Cisjordania y construyeron la valla de seguridad. Desde entonces cada vez han habido menos y menos atentados, lo cual no sera por falta de odio a Israel o porque los terroristas no les tengan ganas a los israelies. Para que luego digan que al terrorismo no se le puede derrotar militarmente.

Y es que la solucion definitiva al problema politico sera politica, pero antes se debera recordar a los arabes que la victoria militar es una opcion que no esta a su alcance. Solo asi la politica aparecera como la unica salida, pero para ello aun hace falta seguir con la presion implacable sobre Hamas y el resto de grupos terroristas.


A los euro progres pijos se les llena la boca de defender el medio ambiente, de luchar contra el "calentaminto global" y tal y cual pascual.

Bueno pues podrian empezar por bajar el arancel de las bombillas de bajo consumo producidas en China que es de un 66%.

Y es que hay intereses e intereses. GENTUZA!


España ha duplicado el tamaño de su economia y todas las cifras macroeconomicas son buenas, por otro lado los sueldos no es que hayan subido al mismo nivel ni mucho menos.

Que ha pasado? La productividad, que de hecho ha bajado. La economia ha crecido porque ahora hay mas gente produciendo pero a nivel individual el valor de esa "produccion" no ha subido, por tanto los sueldos individuales tampoco. De cajon.

El número de ocupados supera los 20 millones, ocho millones más que en 1994. La mitad de los nuevos puestos son ocupados por mujeres y una cuarta parte por inmigrantes
El gran talón de Aquiles de la economía es la escasa productividad (PIB producido por empleado). Una materia que España suspende sistemáticamente, y sigue perdiendo terreno año tras año respecto a los demás países europeos. En 2006, la productividad española creció el 0,7%, la mitad que la zona euro (1,4%). La situación, no obstante, ha mejorado respecto al periodo 1997-2001, en que la productividad de la zona euro creció al 1,4% y la española al 0,2%.

Y es que si tu no creas mas valor que antes, por mucho que ahora seamos muchos mas los que produzcamos en el pais, nadie te va a pagar mas por el fruto de tu trabajo.Estamos?


Que pais el nuestro. Donde los titulados de FP encuentran trabajo antes que muchos universitarios y ganando mas pasta. Con todo aun hay cada año mas universitarios que titulados de FP y esta opcion (la FP) aun tiene mala prensa.

Y uno aun podria decir, no pasa nada, en el mundo en que vivimos lo que se impone es la economia del conocimiento, la innovacion, etc.

Lo que pasa es que la Universidad en España es una mierda, masificada y con muchos profesores infames. Donde la mitad de lo que aprendes directamente no te sirve para NADA. Donde acabas la carrera y no tiene ni puta idea de nada y te toca aprender en la empresa. Universidad, fruto de la sociedad donde nace, donde no se fomenta ni la mentalidad critica, ni emprendedora, ni de toma de riesgos. En fin que esto necesitaria un post entero pero para resumir: mal vamos.
Pero tranquilos, el tiempo nos pondra en nuestro sitio.


Jean Ziegler es uno de los progres mas apestosos y despreciables que se conocen. Tanto que deberia estar en un zoologico de especies raras y por suerte en peligro de extincion.El hombre trabaja para la ONU (normal) es caso es que ahora carga contra China por estar "saqueando Africa", cagate lorito:

P. Y sobre África, parece que China se está posicionando en ese continente.

R. China no tiene ninguna concepción social ni política para África. Se limita a saquear las materias primas sin proponer un modelo de desarrollo. Yo pienso que América Latina es la que va a cambiar el mundo.

El problema de este tio es que piensa que una empresa o un pais cuando invierten o firman acuerdos con otro han de tener una "concepcion social y politica" y "proponer un modelo de desarrollo", lo cual es ironico viniendo de un tipo que de joven se declaraba antiimperialista.

El tema es que China, dado su crecimiento desde que abandono las politicas socializantes de las cuales el señor Ziegler siempre ha sido partidario mira por donde, necesita mas y mas materias primas. Para ello ha ido a Africa ha conseguirlas y ademas a hacer negocio.

Africa esta llena de chinos vendiendo, invirtiendo y comprando materias primas, no saqueandolas, y los africanos se estan beneficiando de esas inversiones que estan haciendo mas por Africa que toda la ayuda al desarrollo inyectada por blancos estupidos con mala conciencia colonial y que ha sido contraproducente.

Para mas informacion:

China-Africa trade jumps 39%

Since then China has scrapped tariffs on 190 kinds of imported goods from 28 of the least developed African countries, and Chinese firms have greatly increased investments in Africa - most notably in the oil sector.

In the first 10 months of 2005 alone, Chinese companies invested a total of $175m in African countries, according to the official figures.

Chinese firms are also taking on significantly more construction projects in Africa, most notably infrastructure works.

Y si nos fijamos en la naturaleza de la inversion China:

Between 1990 and 1997, Chinese investment into Africa amounted to about $20 million, but from 1998 to 2002 that increased six-fold to $120 million. Only about twenty percent of that amount came into South Africa, not as large a share as might have been expected. The report indicates that there are 450 Chinese-owned investment projects in Africa, of which 46 percent are in manufacturing, 40 percent in services and only 9 percent in resource-related industries. In value terms, extractive and resource-related projects comprise a much higher share at 28 percent, but nonetheless 64 percent of the value of Chinese investment in Africa is in the manufacturing sector.

En fin que el fosil de Ziegler puede seguir clamando por sus modelos sociales y politicos fracasados, que los africanos y chinos ya van haciendo negocios y pasando de gentuza como el.

viernes, diciembre 21, 2007


Como el Almendro mira.

Pues si, compromisos laborales (mas pasta, mas pasta) y sentimentales (mas tias, mas tias) me han tenido bastante absorbido asi que no he tenido tiempo para postear pero ya esta todo bajo control.

Y ahora que llega la Navidad pues es hora de actualizar un poco el Blog.

Vamos alla:

La mujeres ganan de media casi 6000 euros menos que los hombres. Ya hemos dicho aqui que esto no es sintoma de discriminacion, y el periodista de EL PAIS parece que ya empieza a hacer los deberes:

Según el instituto, estas diferencias se explican porque hay una mayor proporción de mujeres que de hombres trabajando a tiempo parcial, lo que da lugar a que sus ganancias anuales sean inferiores.

Lo cual es una decision voluntaria que se explica en gran medida por la mayor propension de las mujeres a ser las encargadas de cuidar a la familia, pero las mujeres cobran lo mismo que los hombres por el mismo trabajo. PUNTO.


Por los viejos tiempos, y que no decaiga, en Valencia aun nos corre sangre por las venas, como muestra:

En lo economico un poco demasiado socialistas, pero bueno nadie es perfecto.


Al conocer a mujeres de cultura anglosajona de todo tipo te das cuenta de sus peculiaridades. Desde americanas, a australianas, canadienses, irlandesas, e inglesas.

Bueno, obviamente no soy el unico que ha notado ciertas diferencias notorias entre unas y otras.

Lo mejor los comentarios:

Here's what's happened: in the last 5-10 years, London has had an influx of beautiful Europeans and South Americans. It has become a truly international city. This is bad news for the frumpy English girls who previously had the pick of the men as they now have to compete against hundreds of thousands of genuinely beautiful, size 6 (well, that's not always true, some can be up to a size 8!), VERY well educated, loving, intelligent, witty girls (who can also drink!). The amusing thing is that English girls are not bothering to compete! English women: It is NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE to be out of shape (black trousers to cover your natural, pear shape, anyone?), size 12 is NOT slim and you need to realise that men you would normally be with are marrying Katrinas, Helenas, and Paulas. Not one of my close friends are dating English girls and it is exactly because of this reason. Moan, swell and read Bridget Jones all you like but don't expect London men (who DO groom and look good) to accept it.

Steven (London).

Ahi es donde pica.


Me gusta la proyeccion internacional que esta adquiriendo mi admirado Santiago Segura, el mejor cineasta Español de las ultimas decadas (junto con Amenabar).


Una pagina un poco chorra pero que a mi me hace gracia.


Los progres, como no, siempre estan protestando sobre la creciente desigualdad entre clases sociales. Ya se sabe que detras de estas lloronas lo unico que hay es envidia, celos y remordimiento por haber estudiado filologia apache o sociologia y ser un mileurista pringao mientras el amigo fontanero gana mas pasta que ellos.

Pues bien, el sitio donde mas desigualdad hay segun el progrerio internacional, es EEUU donde los mas ricos cada vez ganan mas. El problema es que analizando los datos esto no se ve por ninguna parte.

Asi que a nuestro pobre progre ya ni siquiera le queda una injusticia real que usar para enmascarar su enfermiza ENVIDIA por los que ganan mas que el ni para ocultar su FRUSTRACION porque en el mercado laboral nadie aprecia su Tesis Doctoral sobre la Reproduccion del Pingüino Malayo.

The Treasury study examined a huge sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. The study tracks what happened to these tax filers over this 10-year period. One of the notable, and reassuring, findings is that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile.

Of those in the second lowest income quintile, nearly 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down. This is a stunning show of upward mobility, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years.

Also encouraging is the fact that the after-inflation median income of all tax filers increased by an impressive 24% over the same period. Two of every three workers had a real income gain--which contradicts the Huckabee-Edwards-Lou Dobbs spin about stagnant incomes. This is even more impressive when you consider that "median" income and wage numbers are often skewed downward because the U.S. has had a huge influx of young workers and immigrants in the last 20 years. They start their work years with low wages, dragging down the averages.

Those who start at the bottom but hold full-time jobs nonetheless enjoyed steady income gains. The Treasury study found that those tax filers who were in the poorest income quintile in 1996 saw a near doubling of their incomes (90.5%) over the subsequent decade. Those in the highest quintile, on the other hand, saw only modest income gains (10%). The nearby table tells the story, which is that the poorer an individual or household was in 1996 the greater the percentage income gain after 10 years.

Only one income group experienced an absolute decline in real income--the richest 1% in 1996. Those households lost 25.8% of their income. Moreover, more than half (57.4%) of the richest 1% in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. Some of these people might have been "rich" merely for one year, or perhaps for several, as they hit their peak earning years or had some capital gains windfall. Others may simply have not been able to keep up with new entrepreneurs and wealth creators.

The key point is that the study shows that income mobility in the U.S. works down as well as up--another sign that opportunity and merit continue to drive American success, not accidents of birth. The "rich" are not the same people over time.


Estos dias estan de primarias en EEUU y muchos candidatos gañanes coquetean con el proteccionism mas rancio y barato para ganarse votos de la gente menos informada.

Pues bien, no hay dudas de que la liberalizacion comercial es buena para todos, empezando por los paises desarrollados, como queda demostrado en este estudio.

Opponents of trade liberalization have sought to indict free trade and trade agreements by painting a grim picture of the economic state of American workers and households. They claim that real wages have been stagnant or declining as millions of higher-paying middle-class jobs are lost to imports. But the reality for a broad swath of American workers and households is far different and more benign.

Contrary to public perceptions:

  • Trade has had no discernible, negative effect on the number of jobs in the U.S. economy. Our economy today is at full employment, with 16.5 million more people working than a decade ago.
  • Trade accounts for only about 3 percent of dislocated workers.Technology and other domestic factors displace far more workers than does trade.
  • Average real compensation per hour paid to American workers, which includes benefits as well as wages, has increased by 22 percent in the past decade.
  • Median household income in the United States is 6 percent higher in real dollars than it was a decade ago at a comparable point in the previous business cycle. Middle-class households have been moving up the income ladder, not down.
  • The net loss of 3.3 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade has been overwhelmed by a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing. Two-thirds of the net new jobs created since 1997 are in sectors where workers earn more than in manufacturing.
  • The median net worth of U.S. households jumped by almost one-third between 1995 and 2004, from $70,800 to $93,100.

The large majority of Americans, including the typical middle-class family, is measurably better off today after a decade of healthy trade expansion.


Y ya que el rollo del apocalipsis climatico sigue en marcha, hasta que acabe como el Agujero de la capa de Ozono, la Gripe Aviar, Las Vacas Locas y su puta madre, es decir en el OLVIDO, hasta entonces, ¿por que no bajamos las temperaturas pintando las cosas de blanco?

Curioso cuanto menos.

Ah y por supuesto aunque aqui nos cagamos en los Chinos y en el hideputa de Buch, España sigue sin cumplir Kyoto ni jarta de vino.

El año 2007 será previsiblemente malo para la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero en España. A falta de datos definitivos, el consumo energético hasta el 12 de noviembre refleja una tendencia negativa que difícilmente se revertirá en mes y medio. La producción de electricidad con carbón ha crecido un 4,99%, la de gas natural ha bajado un 2,32% y las nucleares han producido un 7,57% menos de electricidad que en el mismo periodo del año anterior. La producción más contaminante aumenta para suplir la rebaja del gas y la nuclear, que emiten menos CO2.

El aumento de la demanda de energía trastoca los planes del Gobierno

Esto implica que "las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero no van a disminuir y subirán a final de año un 1%. España emitirá entonces casi un 50% más que en 1990, el año base de Kioto", según el director del Instituto Worldwatch, José Santamarta, que cada año adelanta los datos oficiales y que es asesor del ministerio. Hasta ahora, el Ejecutivo ha usado los datos de Santamarta en comparecencias públicas, ya que lo calcula antes que el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. El ministerio no quiso ayer comentar la situación.

Si, mejor que no comente, que no comente.


El nivel de burocracia, es decir el poder que se otroga a los funcionarios publicos para dirigir y controlar nuestras vidas, es directamente proporcional el nivel de corrupcion de un pais.

Evidentemente si un funcionario puede tomar una decision de manera discrecional de la cual depende algo importante para ti, pues te tiene cogido por los huevos para sacarte la pasta a cambio de tomar la decision que tu necesitas.

Menos mal que a estos chupopteros les llaman servidores publicos. JA!

En una de las conversaciones intervenidas, según informaron a EL PAÍS fuentes de la investigación, el funcionario supuestamente corrupto le comunicaba a su interlocutor las condiciones para conseguir el permiso buscado: "Si no me das un kilo [6.000 euros], esta licencia no la tendrás nunca".


Lo privado es muy caro y por eso hay que dar servicios publicos, especialmente porque sino los pobres quedarian desatendidos.

Es el mantra que se oye una y otra vez a todas horas. Lo que pasa es que lo privado generalmente no es mas caro que lo publico, lo que pasa es que no tenemos ni idea de lo que cuesta lo publico puesto que se oculta el coste y ademas mucha gente no se puede pagar servicios privados porque despues de que los vampiros de Hacienda los hayan dejado secos para pagar los publicos, no les queda un duro y por tanto no hay mas opcion que usar esos servicios publicos.

Los cuales como estan ofrecidos por funcionarios que ganan igual lo hagan bien o mal, son una PUTA MIERDA.

De hecho en los paises pobres las mejores escuelas son las privadas, que son mejores que las publicas y asequibles para todos los bolsillos.