Welcome Eurovegas

Spanish Government will give in to the economical pressure and will change the Law which regulates the prohibition of smoking in public places, in order to satisfy the requirement made to Madrid provincial authorities by Sheldon Adelson, the USAn gambling tycoon, as an essential condition for building the gaming complex known as Eurovegas.
But changing the laws specifically for removing the smoking ban within just Eurovegas is a regrettable recoil in the defence of a citizens’ right and principle which was so hard to achieve in Spain: the preference given to people’s right to not inhaling tobacco smoke over the right to smoke; also, while discriminating the rest of public establishments whose owners would also like to be granted such exception, this change means a breach in the equality principle. Worse yet: changing the law just for ensuring the maximum profit of a magnate, Spain prostitutes itself with unprecedented degree and effrontery.
Reasons given by both Madrid Province politicians and, very specially, Alcorcón mayor David Pérez, for adopting this measure are weak if not plain stupid. On one hand they say that many jobs will be created; and certainly it will; but, as usual, politicians only look at the short term, and they deliberately ignore the social and environmental impact that such a centre for consumption and waste may have, or the indirect costs (almost impossible to work out) that might come. On the other hand, they explain that there needn’t be any unlooked for health issues because, after all, getting into a casino is a voluntary decision, isn’t it? This is as absurd as can be. Isn’t it a voluntary decision to get into any bar, pub or disco? That’s exactly what the law was passed for: it is meant for preserving the health of those who want to exert their right to go into a bar without becoming passive smokers. The law should be the same for every such locals: either smoking is banned everywhere, or nowhere.
Then, what’s behind this weird modification of the law? Quite simple: first, the political recognition and the electoral goal of those parties involved, thanks to the sensible employment and economical activity increases during the construction phase, and even afterwards, at least for a few years. So, selfish interests, that’s all. Once more, the convenience of some persons are put ahead of the society as a whole, because such a decision will weaken the anti-smoking law to the point of making it totter. Second, the likely comissions, gifts or perquisites to be received in return. Not a possibility at the reach of the small pub owner, lacking money enough to buy the politicians. If Spain were not a banana republic, it would not yield to the money pressure and accept such a unfair exception. But one thing is for sure: Mr Adelson has not chosen Spain for Eurovegas because he loves us so much, but because he knows that Spanish laws can be bought with money.

Publicado en Estrella Digital

Publicado en Estrella Digital


El gobierno de España modificará la ley que regula la prohibición de fumar en lugares públicos donde esto pueda afectar la salud de terceras personas, con objeto de satisfacer la condición que Sheldon Adelson, el magnate norteamericano del juego, impone a la Comunidad de Madrid como requisito indispensable para crear el complejo lúdico conocido como Eurovegas.
Pero cambiar la ley antitabaco única y exclusivamente para que pueda fumarse en Eurovegas supone un deplorable retroceso en la defensa de los derechos y libertades de la ciudadanía, que tanto trabajo costó conseguir, con objeto de que se antepusiera siempre el derecho de los no fumadores a respirar aire sin humo al de los fumadores a consumir labores del tabaco; y también una clara violación del principio de igualdad, ya que discrimina al resto de establecimientos públicos cuyos dueños también querrían que se permitiera fumar en ellos. Y, lo que es peor: al cambiar la ley para asegurar los máximos beneficios de un magnate, España se prostituye con un descaro y en grado sin precedentes.
Los argumentos que tanto los políticos de la Comunidad de Madrid como –muy especialmente– David Pérez, el alcalde de Alcorcón, esgrimen para adoptar y apoyar esta medida son débiles, cuando no simplemente ridículos. Por un lado, aseguran que se generará mucho empleo; y así será, con toda probabilidad; pero, como siempre, los políticos sólo miran el corto plazo, puesto que, entre otras cosas, dicha afirmación ignora deliberadamente el impacto social y medioambiental que tanto a corto como a largo plazo puede tener la creación de semejante centro del consumo, y los costes indirectos (casi imposibles de calcular) que conllevará. Por otro lado, argumentan que no tiene por qué haber riesgo para la salud de los no fumadores porque, al fin y al cabo, entrar a un casino es algo voluntario. Esto sí que no se tiene en pie. ¿Acaso no es también voluntario entrar en un bar cualquiera? Y, sin embargo, para eso se aprobó la ley antitabaco: para que quien voluntariamente quiera ejercer ese derecho pueda hacerlo sin tener que convertirse en fumador pasivo. O se autoriza el tabaco en todas partes, o no se autoriza en ninguna.
Entonces, ¿qué es lo que subyace tras esta aberrante modificación de la ley? Está claro: por un lado, el gol político y espaldarazo electoral que se apuntarán quienes estén en las esferas concéntricas alrededor de Eurovegas, gracias al inminente y significativo aumento del empleo y de la actividad económica que se producirán durante la construcción del complejo, parte de los cuales permanecerán después, al menos durante unos años. Es decir, que una vez más se anteponen los intereses de los políticos y sus partidos sobre los de la sociedad en su conjunto, para la que una modificación como esta puede debilitar la ley antitabaco hasta tal punto que la haga tambalear. Por otro lado, las más que presumibles comisiones, regalos o prebendas que muchos de los implicados en la decisión reciban como contrapartida, posibilidad que le está vedada al pequeño empresario, que no tiene dinero para convencer a los políticos. Si España fuera un estado de derecho serio y no una república bananera, no cedería a esa presión del capital estableciendo tan lacerante excepción. Y, desde luego, una cosa es cierta: Mr. Marshall no ha elegido a España para su Eurovegas por lo mucho que nos quiere o la predilección que sienta por nuestro país, sino porque sabe que aquí la ley se puede comprar.

Posted in Opinion | Leave a comment

The FEMENomenon

Nothing greater than the Femenomenon has arrived to the European “political life” since Cicciolina; and even better, since Ilona Staller was a professional actress, which only hampers the arousal, whereas these glowing youngsters of glorious traits are true impromptu performers full of inspiring freshness. They claim fighting the sex industry and, by my faith!, sex industry has come across hard contenders, because there are no professionals apt enough to compete with the natural, willing and fervent strip from convinced exhibitionists. Besides, not without reason has always been told that those coming from nuns’ schools are the best, the most prurient and daring. Never, oh!, pleased the gods to give me such a lover. I wish the FEMENist movement big success and prosperity, and may the recruit many new members, to bestow their triumphant youth onto papers’ front pages and to news’ backgrounds, thus ousting the boredom of porn magazines and movies. If Femen does us this mercy, I laugh at the sanctimonious scenes of prudish Hollywood, and at the cheap strippers of Spanish cinema.
Besides, these women have operated big changes in me. While feminism was a matter of fat, ugly women, I confess that it never got a hold on me; but this new Femenism won my support for their cause in thirty seconds since their first performance, months ago. Now they make their premier in Spain and the totally win my will. Now I’m an enthusiastic and convinced Femenist. Not any longer I see, like before, objects of desire in these angels’ bodies, but desirable tools or weapons for protest; and I subscribe any motto as long as it comes written in their divine skin-banners. Their twin arguments, merrily looking to heaven, thanksgiving for all that wonder with their big blind eyes, have an overwhelming strength. I collect their swollen sentences, steady like faith, and I set them as my desktop background to show the north of my dreams, and to season my dawns.
Divine Femenists, sweetest Lara, I call on you! Pack out the media, the whole country, with your combat weapons, and keep scandalizing the religious moral of this inveterate sinner.

El Femenómeno es lo más grande que ha llegado a la “vida política” europea desde Cicciolina; aunque mejor, porque Ilona Staller era una actriz profesional, y eso siempre le quita morbo a la cosa, mientras que estas lozanas jovencitas de gloriosos atributos son verdaderas espontáneas de inspiradora frescura. Dicen combatir la industria del sexo y yo digo: ¡por Satanás que la industria del sexo ha encontrado unas duras combatientes!, pues no hay profesionales que puedan competir con el destape natural, voluntario y ardiente de un exhibicionismo convencido. Además, no sin razón se ha dicho siempre que las de colegios de monjas son las mejores, las más salaces y osadas. Nunca, ¡ah!, plugo a los dioses regalarme con una amante así. Grande éxito y prospeeriad le deseo al movimiento Femenista, y que recluten muchas adeptas para que le pongan su juventud triunfante a las portadas de los periódicos, a las noticias de los telediarios, desbancando así las aburridísimas revistas y películas pornográficas. Ríome yo, si Femen nos hace tal merced, de las timoratas escenas del puritanismo hollywoodiano y de los baratos desnudos del cine español.
Publicado en Estrella Digital
Grandes cambios han operado estas mujeres en mí, además. Mientras el feminismo había sido cosa de gordas y feas, a lo Almeida, confieso que nunca llegó a interesarme gran cosa; pero este nuevo Femenismo me ganó para su causa en treinta segundos desde su primera aparición, hace ya meses. Y hoy, con su entrada en España, termina de ganar mi voluntad. Ahora soy un Femenista entusiasta y convencido. Ya no veo, como antes, en los cuerpos de estos ángeles un objeto de deseo, sino tan sólo deseables herramientas o armas de protesta, y suscribo cualquier lema que venga escrito en sus divinas, cutáneas pancartas. La fuerza de sus argumentos siempre gemelos, que miran alegres al cielo dando gracias al Olimpo por tanta maravilla con sus grandes ojos ciegos, es arrolladora. Colecciono sus turgentes frases, firmes como la fe, y las pongo como fondo de mi escritorio para que marquen el norte de mis sueños y aderecen mis amaneceres.
¡Divinas Femenistas, dulcísima Lara, yo os invoco! Llenad los medios de comunicación, el país entero, con vuestras armas de combate, y seguid por muchos años escandalizando la moral religiosa de este contumaz pecador.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged | Leave a comment

Beating a dead horse

.
Over the past week Spain has had enough of reading and listening, on all Spanish media, hundreds pontificating voices talking from resentment or envy, from animosity or defeatism, from mockery and even perfidy, what a ridiculous chimera it was of Madrid to run for hosting the 2020 Olympics, what an absurd idea or what a crazy aspiration; talking how Madrid could not have won or how they deserved being defeated. These backwards jinxes, these foretellers of the past and these fans of anothers’ failures have done their best to poke the embers where the hopes and illusions of millions of Spaniards still burn down, as does the work of all who fought for Madrid to win. Beating a dead horse is a symptom of little courage and too much meanness, worse yet when it’s done from the pulpit of the radio, the TV or the papers. Woe enough have those who betted on Madrid’s success, and they don’t need to be further scolded by those who, before September 13th, dared not bet for the defeat. Where were all these voices before Olympic Committee’s decision? These smartasses who, today, express their sagacity in hindsight or cock a mean snook at Madrid, where were they? None of these prophets “ex post” dared to forecast the result. But, of course, it is very easy to foresee the past.
Mean attitude have the Spanish citizens who puddle into defeatism or wish to others what they would not want for themselves.
..
Durante la pasada semana los españoles nos hemos hartado de leer y escuchar, por todos los medios de comunicación, cientos de voces pontificando, desde el rencor o la envidia, desde la animadversión o el derrotismo, desde el escarnio e incluso la perfidia, cómo la candidatura olímpica de Madrid había sido una ridícula quimera, un despropósito o una loca aspiración; cómo Madrid no podía haber ganado y cómo se mereció perder. Estos cenizos retroactivos, futurólogos del pasado e hinchas del fracaso ajeno se han dedicado a fondo a atizar los rescoldos donde aún hoy se consumen la esperanza o la ilusión de millones de españoles, y el trabajo de todos los que lucharon por conseguir que Madrid fuera sede para el 2020. Pero hacer leña del árbol caído es, me temo, síntoma de poca valentía y bastante ruindad; peor aún cuando se dispara desde el púlpito de las ondas o desde las columnas de opinión. Bastante pena tienen quienes apostaban por el éxito para que ahora vengan los que, antes del 13 de septiembre, no apostaron por la derrota, a cebarse en los despojos. ¿Dónde estaban todas esas voces antes del fallo del Comité Olímpico? Tanto enterado que hoy expresa su sagacidad a posteriori o su mezquino corte de mangas, ¿dónde se hallaba? Ninguno de estos profetas “ex post” se atrevió a pronosticar el resultado. Pero, claro, resulta muy fácil adivinar el pasado.
Lamentable actitud la de esa España que se enfanga en el derrotismo o que les desea a otros lo que no querría para sí.
.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged | Leave a comment

Goodbye Lolita. (On the age raise for sexual consent in Spain)

.
Spanish Government will raise the age of sexual consent from thirteen to sixteen. This change -it is said- aims to fight against abuse and child prostitution, not to penalize “sexual relationships among equals”. To this purpose, it will be considered a crime (abuse) to perform sexual acts with a person under sixteen, even if he/she consents, but with an important qualification: there will be no crime if both are alike in age and maturity, not to penalize behaviours that might belong to social reality.

lolita-lolita

It’s certainly laudable to protect minors; but there are two sides of this project which call my attention. One is this new figure of speech: “sexual relationships among equals”, subjective and ambiguous as they come, and introductory of an unwanted moral content in the Penal Code; not to mention that it might even violate the Constitution, as far as it restricts the minors’ freedom to choose their sexual partners. Besides, it suggests -or, at least, opens the door to- the possibility of extending, under the same “equals” fundation, the exemption of responsibility to other typified criminal behaviours.
The other is the wrong -to my belief- assumption that only sexual relationships “among equals” (whatever this means) belong to the social reality. No doubt, such relationships are much more common than those taking place among “unequals”; but dismissing the latter from social reality is a too bold step. Statistics support that many Lolitas choose an adult as their sexual playmate, and it’s also not unfrequent to find boys who sleep with women of age. Why these cases should be outside of social reality?
For typifying a crime, we must in the first place to attend to the legal right we want to protect; in this case, minors’ sexual freedom. But protecting a freedom by way of curbing it sounds somewhat puzzling, and we wonder: what does sexual freedom precisely mean? Lacking a legal definition, and linking to the aim of fighting sexual abuse, it’s reasonable to understand it as, for instance, the freedom to decide, consciously and responsibly, upon how a person wants to sexually dispose of their bodies; and this ability to freely and maturely decide, this sexual responsibility, the teenager either has it or lacks thereof, but it has nothing to do with the “likeness in age and maturity” of the chosen mate. (Quite another thing would be the how easily they can be influenced; but, had we to take into account this ductility of human will in every behaviour, we’d end up doing without the principle of responsibility and, then, we’d have to dismantle the whole penal thingy.) Thus, if the Government considered that people under sixteen lack the necessary ability for taking a mature decision on their sexual activities, all sex with them should be penalized, with no exception. But this is not the case: the future revision of the Spanish penal code, by allowing sex among equals, clearly means that preserving the virginity of minors until they can dispose of sensibly is not its goal; and the only conclusion is, the boasted protection of minors consists simply in limiting the range of people they can chose as mates: only those who are alike in age and growth. We don’t aim, then, at our children not playing doctors before sixteen, but at them playing among themselves. We don’t mean to defend our Lolitas‘ integrities, but to keep Humbert Humbert away from the party.
On the other hand, Spain struggles for many years to achieve an earlier sexual education and development for teenagers; our broadcast programming abunds in uncurbed content full of explicit references to sex and promiscuity which can’t but arise sexual interest of children and stimulate their replaying of the watched behaviours; and during the last decades the age for having the first sexual experiences has dropped one or two years. In such a society sounds somewhat contradictory to postpone the legal acknowledgement of such earlier sexual ripeness.
Then, how this selective curb is justified?, how can we explain this sexual consent age’s leap from thirteen to sixteen… only when it comes to sex with adults?
And which is the undefined limit for this “alikeness in eath and ripeness”? Definitely not sixteen, as, happening to be absurd to incriminate two minors who had had sexual intercourse between them, making victims of themselves at the same time, the exception wouldn’t be necessary in the legal text. Eighteen, perhaps? Hmm… Sexual relations between a boy eighteen and a girl fifteen don’t seem to be outside the “social reality” that wants to be respected, as such couples must be, certainly, quite common in our nowadays sexually liberated society. Twenty, then? Maybe. We don’t know, and we won’t know until we build case-law along the years to come. Every new breach exposed to our judges’ capriciousness turns into a crack for Justice, in upper-case letters.
Be as it will, there is an undeniable conclusion: when we fight sexual abuse and seek minors’ sexual freedom protection, if we consent young adults having intercourse with minors and we forbid the same to the rest of adults, we’re presupposing the laters fulfilled abuse, violating the sacred presumption of innocence. And this, reader, is an outrage; a discrimination implying the system’s incompetence, or failure and give up, to objectively tell in which cases there is abuse and in which don’t. It’s easier to imprison any adult who had sexual relations with a young teenager, regardless of the consent, than trying to find out whether or not there was abuse. Worse yet: it’s not only easier, but politically more profitable, as it suits the morals of a vindicating and outspoken part of the population who don’t like their young daughters -it’s always the daughters- to go out with older boys, and who would be delighted to see these in jail..
El Gobierno reformará el código penal para elevar la edad de consentimiento sexual desde los trece a los dieciséis años. La medida -se dice- va encaminada a luchar contra los abusos y la prostitución infantil, no a penalizar las relaciones sexuales entre iguales. A tal efecto, se considerará hecho delictivo (abuso) la realización de actos sexuales con un menor de dieciséis años aunque éste preste su consentimiento, pero con una importante salvedad: no habrá delito si ambos están próximos en edad y madurez, para no criminalizar conductas que puedan responder a la realidad social.

lolita-lolita

Aspiración encomiable es la de proteger a los menores, desde luego; pero hay en este proyecto, para empezar, dos aspectos que me llaman la atención. Uno de ellos es esta nueva figura de las “relaciones sexuales entre iguales”, subjetiva y ambigua donde las haya y que, además, introduce en el Código un indeseable contenido moral; por no mencionar que puede vulnerar la Constitución en cuanto restringe la libertad de los menores para elegir a sus parejas. (Aparte, esta figura sugiere -o al menos deja abierta- la posibilidad de extender, con idéntico fundamento de igualdad, la exención de responsabilidad a otras conductas tipificadas como delito.)
El otro de los aspectos llamativos es la asunción de que sólo responden a la realidad social las relaciones sexuales “entre iguales”. No niego que tales relaciones son mucho más frecuentes que las que puedan darse “entre desiguales”; pero de aquí a desterrar de la realidad social a estas últimas va un paso demasiado atrevido. Las estadísticas avalan que muchas jovencitas eligen por compañero de juegos eróticos a un adulto, sin faltar casos de jovencitos que se acuestan con adultas. ¿Esto no forma, también, parte de la realidad social?
Cuando se tipifica una conducta como delito, ha de atenderse en primer lugar al bien jurídico que se desea proteger; en este caso, la libertad sexual de los menores. Mas proteger una libertad a base de restringirla es algo que no se entiende muy bien, así que tenemos que preguntarnos: ¿qué se considera concretamente libertad sexual? A falta de una definición legal, y enlazando con la aspiración de luchar contra los abusos, parecería razonable entenderla algo así como la libertad para decidir, de manera consciente y responsable, lo que cada uno quiere hacer con su cuerpecito serrano y olé; y esta capacidad de decisión libre y madura, esta responsabilidad sexual, se tiene o no se tiene, pero es ajena a la “proximidad en edad y madurez” del compañero elegido. (Cosa muy distinta sería la mayor o menor facilidad para ser influido; pero si hubiésemos de tener en cuenta esta ductilidad de las voluntades en todas las conductas acabaríamos por prescindir del principio de responsabilidad y, a continuación, desmontaríamos de arriba a abajo todo el tinglado punitivo.) De este modo, si el legislador considerase que los menores de dieciséis años carecen de la capacidad necesaria para tomar una decisión madura sobre sus actividades sexuales, debería penalizar sin excepción todos los actos sexuales realizados con ellos; pero no es así, ya que la futura redacción del Código penal deja claro, al permitir el sexo entre iguales, que preservar la virginidad de los adolescentes hasta que puedan disponer de ella con sensatez no es su objetivo. De modo que sólo puede concluirse que la tan cacareada protección de los menores se limita a restringir el espectro de personas con las que éstos pueden aparearse: sólo con quienes estén próximos en edad y desarrollo. No se persigue, pues, que nuestros chavales no jueguen a médicos antes de los dieciséis, sino que jueguen sólo entre ellos. No se busca defender la integridad de nuestras Lolitas, sino simplemente alejar a Humbert Humbert de la fiesta.

Publicado en Estrella Digital

Carta publicada en Estrella Digital


Por otra parte, cabe preguntarse cómo se justifica el salto de los trece a los dieciséis para el consentimiento sexual en una sociedad que lleva lustros intentando orientarse hacia una educación y desarrollo sexual más temprano para los adolescentes; en una sociedad cuya emisión televisiva abunda en inacotados contenidos, llenos de erotismo, desinhibición y promiscuidad que no pueden sino estimular el interés sexual de los niños y su repetición de las conductas observadas; y en una sociedad donde, durante las últimas décadas, se ha reducido sensiblemente la edad en que los preadolescentes se estrenan en el maravilloso mundo del placer. Siendo así las cosas, ¿no es contradictorio retrasar la edad para el reconocimiento legal de esta temprana madurez sexual?
Como cabe, desde luego, preguntarse también cuál es el indeterminado límite para esa proximidad en edad y desarrollo. Si la reforma se hubiese redactado sin la salvedad del “sexo entre iguales”, sólo podría cometer tal abuso quien estuviera por encima de los dieciséis, ya que por debajo se daría la paradoja de ser ambos amantes, al mismo tiempo, víctimas y abusadores. (En efecto, si dos jóvenes de catorce y quince años se acoplan voluntariamente bajo la mirada de Eros, ¿quién habría abusado de quién? Ambos serían delincuentes y víctimas, así que ninguno debería ser castigado.) Luego es evidente que esa “proximidad” apunta a una edad más elevada. ¿Dieciocho años, tal vez? Hmm… no parece que las relaciones entre un chaval de dieciocho y una chica de quince caigan fuera de esa realidad social que el reformador afirma respetar, ya que tales apareamientos han de ser muy comunes en la liberada sociedad contemporánea. ¿Veinte años, entonces? Supongamos que sí, aunque bien podrían ser veintidós o veinticinco; no lo sabremos hasta que haya abundante jurisprudencia. (Y, mientras tanto, cada fisura que se abre a la arbitrariedad de los jueces se convierte en una gran brecha para la Justicia, con mayúscula. Inocentes pagarán por estos remilgos legales.)
Concluyamos el razonamiento partiendo de este último supuesto: que el consentimiento sexual de un menor de dieciséis exime de responsabilidad penal por abuso a jóvenes de hasta veinte años por término medio. ¿En qué se fundamenta esta selectiva restricción de la validez de ese consentimiento? Si el objetivo es luchar contra los abusos y progeter la libertad sexual de los menores, ¿por qué éstos pueden tener relaciones con un joven de veinte y no con uno de veintidós? La deducción me parece clara: porque en el segundo caso presuponemos el abuso y en el primero no; con lo cual acabamos de vulnerar el sacrosanto principio de presunción de inocencia. Y esto, amigo lector, me parece un atropello que, además, supone una discriminación por la edad y constituye la prueba del lacerante fracaso judicial para discernir (o la renuncia a intentarlo), en cada caso particular, cuándo ha habido abuso y cuándo no. Por el “delito” de tener relaciones con un quinceañero es más cómodo condenar a todo el que pase de los veinte (o la edad que sea), se haya violentado o no la libertad sexual, que intentar discernir si hubo abuso. Más aún: no sólo se viola la presunción de inocencia, sino que se introduce en el código penal un componente moral que, para colmo, sólo acomoda a un sector de la población: a quienes, viendo con muy malos ojos que sus hijas -siempre son las hijas- se enrollen con tíos mayores, estarán encantados de que los encierren.

Posted in Opinion | 2 Comments

Public health in Madrid. A disinterested strike?

.
El otro día escribí una carta a los periódicos; una de tantas que les envío. Tengo suerte y, con frecuencia, me las publican; aunque, curiosamente, no siempre escogen las de mayor relevancia. En ocasiones he visto impresas algunas de las más impopulares mientras que otras, de marcado interés común, no han llegado a superar el filtro de los jefes de redacción (pese a que cada una de ellas la envío a unos ciento veinte medios). Esto me ha servido para aprender bastante sobre los periódicos y sus intereses. Pues bien: de todas esas cartas que, enviadas, han quedado sin publicar, en pocos casos me ha sorprendido tanto la falta de eco como en el asunto que a continuación expongo.
Vaya por delante que, en un país europeo moderno como se supone que es España, me parece casi imposible, a nivel personal, no estar en contra de cualquier medida que pueda suponer la más mínima merma en su calidad. Soy el primero en cuestionar las medidas que, en este sentido, está tomando el ejecutivo madrileño, y creo que en esto estamos casi todos de acuerdo (o al menos así lo espero).

Eslóganes

Eslóganes “desinteresados”


Ahora bien: de las huelgas que he visto en mi vida, ninguna he encontrado tan engañosa -por no decir fraudulenta- como la que en estos días llevan a cabo los empleados del sector sanitario público de Madrid. Desde luego, me parece muy legítimo que, quienes teman por sus condiciones laborales o sus puestos de trabajo, acudan a un medio tan democrático como es la huelga para conservarlos; pero, por favor, que no le tomen el pelo a la gente ni quieran encandilarla como a niños: “La sanidad no se vende”, “Los recortes matan” o “Luchamos por tu salud” son el tipo de consignas que están utilizando para ganrantizarse el apoyo popular; pero estos lemas rozan, en mi opinión, lo insultante. ¡Hombre!, no ofendan la inteligencia del pueblo ni exploten el romanticismo de una supuesta cruzada altruista sin precedentes, haciéndonos creer que están inmolando sus economías domésticas (ya que su huelga les pasará factura en las nóminas de noviembre y diciembre) y luchando como mártires con el principal objetivo de salvaguardar “el derecho a la salud de todos”. Vaya por Dios, ¡qué nobleza! No digo que no haya seres humanos capaces de un gran desinterés, pero, si los hay, son -por desgracia- una ínfima minoría; y el colectivo médico, que yo sepa, no destaca especialmente por su bondad; no más que cualquier otro, al menos.
A poco que se piense, pronto se comprende que el personal sanitario no está haciendo más que pelear por lo suyo, como lo haría cualquier hijo de vecino; pero ¿cuántos de ustedes creen, de verdad, que si las medidas de privatización hubiesen venido acompañadas de mejoras salariales y laborales para cada uno de esos empleados, se habrían movilizado en esta huelga?
(Aparte, en los tiempos de graves recortes presupuestarios que corremos, con las arcas públicas bajo mínimos, no me parece de recibo que estos huelguistas hayan empapelado sus batas, los centros y los hospitales con decenas de miles de folios impresos a costa del contribuyente, agravando aún más nuestra carga tributaria. No es el montante de ese gasto, sino el gesto, lo que en este caso destaco.)
Los médicos ganan, los contribuyentes pagan.

Los médicos ganan, los contribuyentes pagan.


Pues bien: de este punto de vista no se ha hecho eco la prensa esta vez; y no por falta de gente que opine como yo, me consta. Opiniones bastante más impopulares he visto publicadas. Por eso me pregunto: ¿a qué temen ahora los medios? ¿Conservamos aún, en el siglo XXI, los restos de un temor primitivo, subconsciente y reverencial a la medicina? ¿O es que el colectivo médico tiene un poder fáctico mucho mayor del que yo le atribuía? Nunca deja uno de aprender cosas sobre la prensa y, también, la sociedad en la que vive.
..
Let me first state that, in a modern European country as Spain is supposed to be, I deem close to impossible (at a prsonal level) not to be against whatever proceedings that may entail the smallest loss in health care quality. I believe -or at least hope- that most of us would agree in this; and, in any case, I’m the first one to quarantine the measure taken by the Executive of Madrid: to privatize the management of public health services.
Slogans

“Disinterested” slogans: HEALTH CARE IS NOT FOR SALE. WE DEFEND IT.


However: of all the strikes I’ve seen in my life, none as deceptive -not to say dishonest- as the one recently undertaken by the public health workers in Madrid against that measure. Of course it’s absolutely rightful, for those who fear for their jobs or labour conditions, to go on strike in order to keep them. There’s no question that. But, please, don’t try to cheat on the rest of the citizens and kindle us like children: “The health care is not for sale”, “Spending cuts kill lives”, “We fight for your health” are the kind of slogans being used -or rather say abused- by these workers in their attempt for achieving the population’s support. These kind of slogans dwell, in my opinon, on the verge of insult: they offend our intelligence and exploit the romanticism of a presumed, unprecedented altruist crusade on humankind’s behalf. These strikers are trying to make us belive that they’re inmolating their domestic finances (as they’ll lose part of their wages during the strike) and struggling, like martyrs, just for the sake of safeguarding “our universal right for health”. How noble of them! I’m sure that there exist, here and there, some people capable of enormous disinterest; but these are, unfortunately, a meagre minority in our societies; and, as far as I know, doctors don’t outstand in this; no more than any other group, at least. So, if we think a little, it’s quite easy to understand that, with their strike, the public health staff are but defending their own interest, as any other person would; but if the privatizing measures taken by the government of Madrid would come along with wage increases and working improvements for those workers, how many among you would believe that they’d undertaken a strike “for defending our health”?
Funny enough, and despite a large share of the population realizing this, the mass media haven’t echoed such point of view. Not a single printed word I’ve read denouncing the fallacious slogans of these strikers. And this makes me wonder: what are the newspapers afraid of? Do we still retain, in XXIst century, the vestige of a primitive, subconscious and reverential fear of medicine? Or does the medical corporation have a factual power much bigger than what I thought?
.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged | Leave a comment

Russia II: Raduzhniy, restricted town

Rural church at Raduzhniy

The neighbouring railway stations Kazhanskiy and Yaroslavskiy constitute the main eastern Moscow hub, and that afternoon I was bound to the former for meeting Lyuda and taking together a train to Raduzhniy. But the Moscow underground is intricate and a bit complicated; its signs, especially for an outsider, are not always clear; and in those stations where two lines meet, their entrances can be–and often are–quite far from each other. This is why I mistook the exit and came up to the wrong train terminal, Yaroslavskiy. I was totally disorientated, time was pressing on me, and Lyuda had to come in a haste to the rescue from Kazhanskiy, where she had been awaiting me, and literally drag me there from where I was; therefore, only after a distressing obstacle race among the motley crowd which bustles at all hours between the two terminals were we able, just two minutes before departure, to jump into the Intercity for which she had already bought the tickets .
Quite a decent train it was, spacious and air-conditioned, that took two and a half hours to cover the more than one hundred miles east to Vladimir from Moscow. Yet, our destination was another fifteen miles’ flight south from Vladimir: we aimed the unknown, distasteful and strange town of Raduzhniy: a kind of bedroom community, isolated in the middle of the countryside; to be precise, in a clearing opened in the wood to such effect. It was originally founded (one might evey say «intvented») during the years of the Cold War by simply deforesting fifteen or twenty acres and spreading there, helter skelter, a few austere apartment blocks of striking ugliness to house the workers of a few adjoining facilities (contemporary of the town and inherent to it) built for the investigation and development of lenses, mirrors and other optical components for astronomical and who knows if also military purposes. At present, Raduzhniy consists of three or four wide and bare streets or roads, the deserted and walled up facilities to which the town owes its existence, the ugly housing blocks of the kwartel (districts) #1 and #3, plus some other buildings for servicing the population: school, shops, sports centre, church, etc. Nothing else. Around it, endless leagues of forest. It has no industry or resources whatsoever. The discontinuation of the space race on the part of the two superpowers put an end to the research in telescopes, and nowadays Raduzhniy is only a bedroom community of Vladimir, though there are fifteen miles of field and woodland between them. (By the way: if some reader has wondered about the inexistence of kwartel #2, its construction was planned along the other two, but it was never carried out, nobody knowing for certain why.)
However, Raduzhniy retains up to this day an anachronistic singularity which is as absurd as useless: it still remains a «restricted town» as was originally conceived, presumably for security and industrial espionage reasons. Therefore, theoretically, only its inhabitants or duly authorized persons may enter; and, to this end, the government still keeps a barrier with a police checkpoint at its gate, on the only road that links the town with the rest of the world.
In a practical sense, there are only two possible ways of reaching Raduzhniy: by bus or by car. As for the former, they all must stop at the gate, where a policeman boards and requests the passengers to produce their permits… except if the bus is so crowded that some passengers travel standing on the aisle, in which case—this is the funny point–they are ordered to get off, so that the policeman can easily control only the seated passengers, and then, after the others board again unchecked, the bus is allowed to cross the gate and enter the town. Utterly absurd, isn’t it? One way, then, to underground enter Raduzhniy is to take a bus in Vladimir on a peak hour, boarding the last in the queue for making sure you won’t have a seat. However, it might well happen that, by the time you arrive to the barrier, enough passengers have stepped off along the way for everyone else being checked at the gate, and you may get caught. Now, what about entering by car? Well, the trick here is much easier, as the «security hole», equally absurd, is however better suited for unauthorized people: car passengers are only checked if the vehicle doesn’t show on the windshield the corresponding pass; but if it does, then you’re not even required to stop at the barrier: the car has a cleared way without any kind of control.
So, upon arrival to Vladimir, Lyuda and me headed for the road to Raduzhniy and, first, tried our luck with the bus; but, after disregarding a couple of them for lack of passengers enough to make sure we wouldn’t be checked at the barrier, we decided to try grab a car. Luckily, in Russia is customary among a large number of drivers to casually use their cars as taxis; it’s a kind of handy «paid hitchhike»: you stand on the sidewalk or the road shoulder and flag down the approaching cars until some driver stops by–usually in less than three or four minutes. You tell him where you want to go, and if it’s anywhere along or around his destination, agree on a price (which is often almost fixed by habit) and jump in. (Digression: perhaps this tradition is based on the solidarity and mutual trust derived from not yet distant communism, on the laws of symbiosis and–above all–on the shortage of vehicles; but I’m afraid that, alike hitchhiking, it won’t outlive the pressure of consumerism. Indeed, the so-called progress, along with the entailing individualism of «advanced» societies, will bring among people distrust enough to kill this practice.) But, for the moment, it’s so deep-rooted that in some places there is an unmarked «car stop», settled by custom, where people who aim certain destinations queue for taking a car, and there’s no need to flag them down: drivers know.
And such was the case where Lyuda and me stood; so, even though only a few of the cars showed in the windshield the Raduzhniy pass (which Lyuda well knew, as she lived there for years), we didn’t need to wait long for somebody to pick us up: a lady on her way back home from work, driving a nice and tidy car. The stereo played such a nice music, and I was so tired, that I fell asleep during the journey. Twenty minutes later, we entered without any problems the Forbidden Town. When we got off the car, we handled the lady one hundred rubles and she protested that it was more than the usual «tariff» for this trip, but we insisted and she finally took the money.
Actually, it was only me who needed to uderground enter Raduzhniy. Lyuda had a permit, as she had been living there most of her life; and this is the answer to what some reader may have wondered by now: what had brought me to visit such a dull place? Well, sheer curiosity for knowing the town where Lyuda grew up, and the thrill of sojourning the same family appartment she had dwelled with her parents since their distant arrival from Kyrguistan (during the USSR times) until their sad and recent demise. Actually, her father had been one of the physicists who worked in designing the mirrors and lenses for whose developement the Soviets had «made up» Raduzhniy. And it’s because of these fictional undertones that I found engaging to stay for a few days in that small flat of so fairly socialistic, whose taste to slavic tradition, to plain and humble life, still lingered on: the wooden floored living and bedroom; the plastic coveredel tiles in kitchen and toilet; the damp patches on the worn wall paper; solid woodwork; gas and water piping re-painted half a dozen times; huge radiators; old-style electrical appliances, yellowing from age; Formica-lined furniture in the ugly design, somewhat cubist, of the 70’s; bath and toilet in tiny separate cubicles; cheap plastic ornaments hanging on the walls; some Orthodox icons; old photos turning sepia; several shelves full of Russian literature and plenty of engineering books; two old armchairs worn out from excessive use; a vacuum tube television and even an old valve radio. Traces of a hundrum existence, unadventurous and simple, yet probably happy.

Family pictures

As to Lyuda, she was orphaned while still in her thirties and, being an only child, she didn’t have any relatives left but for a bad-tempered bossy grandmother, quite indifferent to her, who lived in Ukraine, and an uncle in the nearby Vladimir. Having almost no friends, her life went by in the greyest, most helpless and stoical loneliness.

One of those days we visited Vladimir. It’s a millenial city that had its golden age during the XIIth century and then, after the downfall ensuing the invasion at the hands of Tartar and Mongolian hordes commanded by Batu Khan, still kept some ascendancy until the XIVth century. In those times, it was one of the capitals of Russia as well as a see, but nowadays it’s only characterized by the tourism related to its past preeminence and historical buildings (it’s one of the cities of the Moscow «Golden Ring») but, mostly, for being an industry, energy and military center of medium significance. And, though spoiled by the ubiquitous chimneys of the thermal power station, it has a nice and friendly historical: located on a hill, abounds in stately buildings, old churches, large old wooden mansions, broad parks and graceful gardens. From its southernmost side, right on top of the hill and devoid of high buildings, endless leagues of woodlands can be contemplated.
We seized the opportunity for carrying out the bureaucratic procedure of my registration, that Soviet entelechy still rules the life and the administrative formalities for Russians and foreigners alike. Its only purpose is to report to the authorities about the official whereabouts of both citizens and tourists. And, though registration is theoretically mandatory for everyone, it actually seems to be nothing else than a way for granting the policemen some arbitrary margin, a legal excuse for taking bribes at will. We did this paperwork in an old post office, whose premises were spacious and bright, with large windows and wooden floor and furniture, and where the employees loafed around shamelessly prattling while the pacient citizens submissively awaited to be serviced. I merely paid the tax, sat on a chair and watched around, because the Lyuda took charge of the whole procedure.
Besides this visit to Vladimir, we didn’t do much during our short sojourn in Raduzhniy. We once rambled in the nice surrounding forest, but there were so many mosquitoes swarming in the bush that we had to give up a second stroll. We went to fetch water, like in the fairy tales, to a nearby spring among the trees that poured just a trickle of water because of the drought; but most of the time we walked up and down, gloomily, along the unsightly, desolate and stark streets, without sidewalks of the bleak town, gardenless, benchless… There was nothing to do there, not a cinema where to kill a couple of hours after dusk, not a cafeteria where to leisurely enjoy a cup oftea, not a bar where to go for a beer. Still, I keep a pleasant memory of those quiet and somewhat melancholic days.
Our return to Moscow was somewhat eventful. Firstly, the mashrutka we took for going from Raduzhniy to Vladimir broke down half-way and we had to wait for the next one, of course paying a new ticket, as each of these small buses is privately run and, therefore, neither the second one would take us for free nor the first one would be willing to refund us the money. Secondly, when coming into the city, we got stuck in a traffic jam. It was rush hour and we hadn’t taken into account this circumstance when working out our schedule. So, once again we had to run and arrived just in time for not losing the train.
This time it was a second rate one for Russian standards; probably a third for western Europe. It was unclean, had no air conditioning, the seats were uncomfortable, and stopped at every station on the way. So, we had to endure three and a half hours of slow, hot and tiresome traveling. However, thanks to this experience I was able to witness one of the miracles of Russian engineering: the anti-ventilation windows. Despite all of them in the carriage being open, the air within didn’t stir, same when we were stopped or in motion. On the other hand, needless to say that, being a cheaper train, there were plenty of shady-looking passengers: your archetypal dirty and drunk vagrant, the stereotype shirtless and disrespectful youngsters in their way to get drunk, and a chance over made-up lady, fleshy and smelling alcohol.
While, among these specimens, I was vainly trying to have a nap, just behind me I heard a voice asking in English something like: «excuse me, I think I’ve overheard you speaking English». Whomever the man was—I thought–he could only be addressing to me. As our seats were back to back, I turned my head half way towards my shoulder just to see, at but a few inches out of the corner of my eye, another eye looking at mine out of its own corner. I answered that, indeed, I was talking in English. The voice asked back: «but are you a native English speaker?» As I wasn’t very interested in a chat over my shoulder with a guy who had addressed to me in such an improper way, I was happy to inform him that I was Spanish and that, besides, my English was quite poor. However, this didn’t seem to deter him from keep talking; his question had been meant to simply break the ice, but he actually wanted to practice a bit, as, apparently, he was forgetting much of his English since he came back from the U.S., where he had been working some time ago. «The typical bore», I thought. However, I soon changed my attitude when I heard the natural and modest way with which, after I asked him about his job in the States, he answered me with a smile: «washing dishes».
He was a nice chap of around thirty and, for not having used the English language in a long time, he spoke it quite fluently and with a more than acceptable accent. He told me about his experience in North America: how he had migrated there with a group of Russian labour hand, how they had been working in different occupations with remarkable performance, and how he remained a bit longer after his fellow countrymen retrned to Russia. Probably he also told me some other facts about his life and–I guess—he asked me about my job and what I was doing in his country. After a while, in almost the same carefree and sudden way he had used for starting our chat, he thanked me the conversation and finished it. A few minutes later, in one of the stops, two drunkards get on the coach and sat by me, and Lyuda urged me to move away. I silently complied, despite not wanting my new friend to think that he had bothered me to the point of changing seats; but later on our sights crossed with a reciprocal smile, and I felt relieved. When he got off the train, two or three stops before Moscow, we waved our hands to each other. What a pity that life has turned us so wary to even become reluctant to talk with a stranger travel mate!
Finally, sweaty and tired, Lyuda and me alighted to an evening Moscow inmersed in a static atmosphere that zealously kept the day’s heat irradiated by asfalt, brick and concrete. It was still twilight when we crossed the threshold of our hot appartment. We opened the windows, but not a puff of air came in.

Posted in transfertosubstack, Travels | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Russia I. MOCKBA. The arrival

Although it was hardly four in the morning when the Czech Lines’ airplane landed, dawn was already faintly breaking over the horizon. Moscow Sheremetyevo airport was barely awakening. To my surprise, the border-crossing procedure was much easier than what my former Russian experiences had made me expect. “This country –thought I– is not the shade of what it was: they no longer make you wait at the migration booths!” My suitcase, though, emerged from the baggage conveyor quite damaged: three supports lost, the mainstay broken, the main strap unfastened, and showing a few severe scratches all over. Luckily I didn’t pack the wine bottles I had thought of bringing, because the bag seemed not only ill handled, but also meanly treated. Too bad it’s not possible–even if only for narrowing down the discredit–to find who is the damage to be attributed: whether Barajas’ operators, Prague’s, Moscow’s or all alike. Sure, I understand that being a package handler is, perhaps, one of the least exciting jobs in our society; but those guys, for the purposes of entertaining themselves or venting their frustrations, rather than kicking the baggage, couldn’t they kick each other’s balls instead? Whatever…
As usual, for reaching the city at this early hour there is no other transportation means than the taxis; and that’s why half of the people in, or around, the airport terminal are neither passengers, nor airport employees, but taxi drivers (or go-getters) in search for travelers (or victims). Also –I was told– there are, from a not far away station, express trains which, for 500 rubles, link the city with the airport. But, in my insane desire for minimizing travel expenses, I opted for something drastically cheaper: the normal bus routes (#851 and #817) which, for only 28 rubles, will take you to the end of some subway line, where from you can finally reach almost any other spot in the great metropolis. The main drawback of these regular buses is that they don’t start running until 6 am; therefore, I had to wait for them almost two hours on a bench outside the terminal, as there is nowhere to sit down inside; and yet I was lucky to find a place in this bench!: other people who came afterwards had to wait standing. Fortunately it wasn’t cold.
When the bus finally arrived, it was already half full with passengers from the other terminals; and since, by then, there were quite a few low-cost travellers gathering around the bus stop bench, I was very lucky (or so I thought) to have the coach doors opened right in front of me, so that, once on board, I was able to take the only empty seat left: at the very end of the coach, between an overheated bulkhead and a guy who hadn’t seen a shower for a month, and whose clothes, indisputable brownish, had the faint shine, the colour of a fly’s wing, characteristic of the dirt tissue excessively handled. Not that this lack of hygiene on the part of my neighbor bothered me much, but it turned out that, with the heat coming from the bulkhead and underneath our sits, all that man’s filth reached the fermentation point and emanated nauseating vapors which kept me on the verge of puking for half an hour. But I had no escape, because on the landing right ahead of me a big traveler had improvised a seat on a heavy suitcase, thus forming an impassable barrier that forced me to stay where I was, doomed to my own luck until the end of the traject: Rechnoy Vokzal metro station.
The Moscow tube–deep, intricate and extensive–is a pharaonic engineering work. The escalators leading to the tunnels, as seen from the top, fade down there in a conical perspective of dizzy slope; and they’re so long that it takes ages to reach the end; an almost distressing feeling, as when descending down the shaft of a mine. The metro stations have a single central platform, the tracks running on both sides. They’re roomy and vaulty, sometimes majestic, and long: capable for the eight-car trains that, in an almost frantic succession, travel loud and shaky the undergrounds of Moscow. On a map, the subway lines ramify and extend as dendrites, near whose ends the stops are so far away from each other that, in some cases, you can take a good nap while covering the distance between them. And so i did: dozing in the half empty car as we progressed through the endless galleries, I imagined the city as moving above me at a sidereal speed, like if it was a fabulous electrical circuit whose nodes the train connected while running along the rails. This way I could mentally gauge Moscow’s huge dimensions. When, at last–twelve stations and two transfers later–I emerged to the surface again, the sun tinted in yellow the east sides of the buildings.
This was the third beltway of the city: a two-levelled, wide and noisy crossing of two main avenues carrying a busy and incessant traffic. My destination was close by: an apartment block of the communist style, parallelepiped, built with initially white brick that now was dirty and grey from the smoke of millions of vehicles. Beyond the shoddy and blind wooden gate, the tiny doorway welcomes me with its grim smile of half opened, pale green mailboxes showing their holes like a toothless mouth. The landings are paved with yellowish broken tiles, heavily patched; the grey steps are dirty and worn. The doors of the apartments are plain, and armoured like prison cells. Behind one of them appears Masha’s smile. A long hug, some kisses, a shower and a well deserved rest…

 

Posted in transfertosubstack, Travels | Tagged , | 3 Comments

FEMEN breasts

.
Como varón sano, encuentro encantadoras estas protestas de las FEMEN ucranianas (o, para el caso, cualquier otra protesta del mismo estilo). Siempre es un placer contemplar unas bonitas tetas en movimiento. ¿Y habéis advertido que ningunas son pequeñas, arrugadas, caídas o feúchas? Pero yo me pregunto: al usar sus atributos sexuales para atraer, hacia su presunta causa, la atención de la gente (sobre todo la de los hombres), ¿no estarán reforzando su papel de mujeres-objeto y contribuyendo con ello al machismo, antes que lo contrario? Llamadme suspicaz, pero a veces parece como si ciertas mujeres estuvieran sólo buscando una excusa para exponer sus bonitos cuerpos a la admiración de los hombres.

.

.

As a healthy male, I find lovely these ukrainian FEMEN “protests”  (or any other of the same sort, for that matter). It’s always a pleasure to watch some young beautiful breasts in motion. And have you folks noticed that none of them are small, wrinkled, drooping or ugly in any way? But I wonder: by using their sexual attributes for attracting, to their presumed cause, people’s (most of all men’s) attention, aren’t they reinforcing their “object” role and thus contributing to machism, rather than the opposite? Maybe I’m too suspicious, but sometimes it seems as if certain women were only looking for an excuse to expose their graceful bodies to the gaze of men.

.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , | Leave a comment