Freelander

Since Le Tribunal d’Estrasburg declared illegal the polemic Parot doctrine used by Spain for impeding the early redemption of terrorists and other dangerous criminals, and the Spanish National Court started to promptly and suspiciously release ETA murderers -along with anoother scum as a side effect-, it became clear to me that Spanish prime minister Rajoy’s Government was behind all that; and every time I heard or read in the media the same question over and over: why such a hurry?, I wondered if journalists and alike professionals could possibly ignore the obvious answer: because it’s a part of the Government’s course of action for the agreements on ETA’s disarmament.
It’s a well known fact in Europe that Strasbourg Tribunal’s resolutions are extremely often ignored, by the affected governments, without any consequences, because the member’s obligation to put them into practice is highly debatable; there are thousands of such resolutions yet to be carried out, among others, by Spanish authorities. But, even admitting that we’re bound to obey them, it remains unquestionable that nothing forced us to release those criminals so promptly and with such priority over other, much older cases; therefore, there is no denying that the Pouplar Party’s government has consented to the releasements.
But then, why the Spanish right wing has acquiesced to such unpopular move among not only their supporters but also most of the nation’s will? Nothing in politics happens by chance. Qui prod est? Obviously the Populars mean to electorally profit the move and -who knows?- perhaps some good will also come by the way to the people. But, for the moment, there’s only a social group to which the numerous releases benefit: ETA and their sociopolitical setting. Thus, we already have to essential elements to achieve the conclusion, because a Government’s move to the advantage of ETA and the abertzale must be paid with a reciprocal move to the advantage of the Government. Doesn’t it smell desarmament?
And, lo and behold!, quite coincidentally there’s now an announcement that ETA will partially deliver their weapons by the end of this year. Well… white and bottled: milk. Do we need more evidence? It seems unequivocal that our present Government gives in to some of the terrorist band’s demands in exchange of an electorally profitable -and socially desirable- desarmament. Whether the Popular Party has been behind these negotiation since its beginning, side by side with Zapatero (the previous Prime minister), or is just carrying it on motu propio, that I can’t tell; but it can’t be denied that everything belongs to the same story.
Not that I’m convinced that negotiating with terrorists should be absolutely rebuked: when facing such a severe social problem as terrorism, I understand that a Government may yield to the temptation of making deals with the criminals, instead of fighting them with more violence; but what makes me puke is to witness the Populars staging a farce with conmiseration and grief for the victims, hiding behind Strasburg and falsely stating their helplessness about the releasements, because all what Rajoy’s Executive is telling us since these started smells rotten. And it turns out rather ironical that, thanks to ETA’s disarmament, Rajoy’s going to pick the Y lo más irónico es que, con el desarme de ETA, Rajoy is going to pick, and show off, the only medal that might have belonged to Zapatero during his pathetic eight years’ rule.Desde que el tribunal de Estrasburgo resolvió en contra de la polémica doctrina Parot (con bastante justicia, hasta donde se me alcanza) y la Audiencia Nacional empezó a excarcelar etarras con sospechosa y desusada celeridad, no me cupo la menor duda de que el gobierno de Rajoy estaba detrás de ello; y cada vez que escuchaba o leía en los medios la repetida pregunta: ¿por qué tanta prisa?, no dejaba de cuestionarme si era posible que los profesionales de la información no fueran capaces de apuntarnos la obvia respuesta: porque la excarcelación forma parte de la línea de acuerdos con ETA para llegar a su disolución.
Parece ser del dominio general que la obligación de acatar las resoluciones del Tribunal de Estrasburgo es más que dudosa, y ya sabemos que miles de ellas no han sido ejecutadas, teniendo España varias aún pendientes de ejecución. Pero incluso admitiendo que tuviésemos el compromiso de hacerlo, lo indudable es que nada nos obligaba a darles curso acelerado y cauce prioritario a las excarcelaciones resultantes de la “desautorización” de la doctrina Parot; de modo que, si así se ha hecho, ha tenido que ser con la total aquiescencia del gobierno del PP.
Pero, ¿por qué la derecha española se presta a una medida tan impopular, no sólo entre sus votantes, sino entre la mayoría de la población? ¿Qui prod est? Nada en política es casual. Sin duda planearán sacarle rentabilidad electoral y -¿quién sabe?- quizá también, de rebote, pueda resultar un beneficio para la nación. Mas, de momento, sólo hay un grupo social a quien la colectiva excarcelación de etarras beneficie: ETA y su entorno sociopolítico, que no es pequeño. De manera que tenemos ya dos elementos esenciales para llegar a la conclusión, puesto que una jugada del Gobierno que beneficia a ETA y al movimiento abertzale ha de estar compensada por una jugada recíproca que beneficie al Gobierno. ¿No huele el lector ya a desarme?
Pues precisamente ahora se anuncia un desarme parcial de ETA para, al parecer, finales de año. ¿Hace falta más evidencia? Parece claro que nuestro Gobierno actual cede ante algunas reivindicaciones de la banda terrorista (o de su brazo político) para acercarse, a cambio, a un desarme electoralmente rentable y, desde luego, socialmente deseable. Si el PP ha estado detrás de esta línea de negociación desde sus mismos inicios, codo con codo con Zapatero, o si sencillamente la está continuando de motu propio, es cuestión a la que mis conjeturas ya no llegan; pero lo que me resulta indudable es que todo forma parte de la misma historia.
Por lo demás, no es que yo sea un convencido detractor de las negociaciones con los terroristas: comprendo que frente a un problema social tan grave un Gobierno ceda a la tentación de pactar acuerdos en lugar de aniquilar al enemigo a riesgo de espirales de violencia; pero lo que me parece inaceptable es que el PP monte la farsa de las condolencias y la empatía hacia las víctimas, de los golpes de pecho y de las solemnes declaraciones de impotencia respecto a la resolución de Estrasburgo. Todo lo que el Ejecutivo lleva diciéndonos desde que comenzaron las excarcelaciones hiede a podrido. Y lo irónico es que, con el desarme de ETA, Rajoy va a colgarse la única medalla que, dado el caso, podría haberle correspondido a Zapatero en sus ocho años de nefasto gobierno.

It would be a pity if one of the most telling and meaningful pieces of information published in the last few days passed unnoticed among the noise of other news, certainly more sexually attractive but surely less important from the point of view of “civilization”.
I’m talking about the increase in the number of millionaires (people owning more than one million dollars) in Spain during the past twelve months: by mid 2013 there were 47000 more millionaires than by mid 2012, meaning a 13’2% increase. The prompt explanation given by economists, at mouse eye, being that financial markets’ evolution has been good for the past months, and that’s where well-off people invest their money. But it turns out that during 2012, without such good evolution in financial markets, the number of millionaires also increased, though “only” in a 5’4%. More yet: the year before that, right in the worst of the economical recession, millionaires in Spain decreased in just a 2%.
Thus, if we observe and analyze these data at eagle view, not being distracted by inmediate causes, we find that, even in full crisis, total wealth in Spain seems to not have disappeared or stalled, but just changed hands: from those lower or middle classes to the upper ones. In other words: the economical inequalities have increased in number and scope–which evidences that our political and economical system, our graceful Constitution with all its adornment of pompous and moving values: freedom, democracy, equality, progress, etc, is but a big social lie; and our kitsch legal system is just wet paper.
So, after these conclusions, as dramatic as inescapable, I find it trivial to worry about a few feminists more or a few unions’ frauds less.

Publicado en Estrella Digital

For as long as one or two decades, Spanish unions have been commiting a continuing fraud with public funds and training courses; an undeniable practice, one of those vox populi realities which, because of their continuous impunity, has ended being considered as normal: “that’s how it works”, people finally think.
Obviously, the protagonism and guilt of the unions is beyond any reasonable doubt, despite their leaders emphatically deny it–which is their right, of course, as any impreached has the right to lie for his own sake according to Spanish laws.
However, to honour justice, we must also accuse other culprits who have as well profited the abuse. But, previously, I guess I must explain to those who ignore it how these deceptions work:
There are public funds for the training and updating of the unemployed, part of which (the funds) are handled to the unions for these to organize and convene the training courses. Naturally, unions are obliged to render an account of the destination of the money; but they’re not the ones to give the courses; these are implemented by private schools, or freelance teachers, hired to that purpose by the unions. So far, so good. Now, what’s what really happens? For an academy to opt for one of those contracts and be awarded the job, they have to submit themselves to one unavoidable condition: when issuing the invoice for their services, they have to state an amount several times higher than the real price of the course: twice, thrice, maybe five times, depending on the case. Thus, the unions pocket such extra charges and justify payments much larger than those carried out. Now, to tally the accounting, the school or the freelancer must needs a way of showing expenses in the amount of the seized money by the unions; otherwise the school should pay so much taxes (for a money they didn’t get) that there would be no gain. No problem! Everything is thought of: the unions provide the academies with a so-called “counter-bill”, i.e., a fake invoice about some imaginary expenses of the academy in order to implement the training course. These fictitious expenses diminish the fictitious income, and everything is balanced.
Of course, unions are the main ones to benefit, pocketing tremendous amounts of public money. But also the dishonest private schools or freelancers profit, as their aquiescence with the fraud enables them to be granted a contract which, had they been honest, would have been out of their reach. Therefore, as we can see, for the deception to work it’s necessary to count on the cooperation of those businesses; withouth this cooperation, the swindle would not be. Now, at least in Spain, any laws student knows that the necessary cooperator in an offence is as guilty as the author himself. Let’s not forget that a business is only as clean as the less filthy of the parts involved.
More yet: if we were to ascertain civic responsibilities, we’d also be somehow guilty who, knowing about the fraud, never reported it, as is our legal duty. Unfortunately this is one of the big problems in our society: we don’t accept our share in the responsibilities.

Publicado en Diario YA