TELEVISIÓN Y RADIO
29/03/07 12h 54mCRÍTICA TVEl Invento del Maligno, por José Javier Esparza: "Portugal"
443 palabrasMadrid, 29 mar. (COLPISA). Escándalo en La 2: un concurso de televisión en Portugal –nos cuenta la crónica- ha propuesto a los espectadores elegir a la persona más importante de la historia portuguesa, y el público ha votado mayoritariamente a Oliveira Salazar, el político que con métodos dictatoriales gobernó el país entre los años treinta y finales de los sesenta. La crónica del corresponsal exudaba indignación: “Salazar, que tuvo al país hundido en la miseria, la represión y el analfabetismo”. El enfoque es de una simpleza tan exagerada que parece cómica, sobre todo si tenemos en cuenta que la historia política de Portugal entre 1908 y 1978 es la más compleja, enrevesada y caótica de todo el continente europeo. Sólo entre 1911 y 1926 hubo unas veinte revoluciones y aproximadamente cuarenta gobiernos. La denominada “república unitaria corporativa”, entre 1926 y 1974, fue una especie de combinación entre dictadura ejecutiva y elecciones presidenciales supuestamente libres. El periodo de Salazar, entre 1928 y 1968, tampoco fue homogéneo, aunque sí relativamente estable; políticamente opaco y con guerras en el extranjero, pero socioeconómicamente cómodo. Los sucesores de Salazar empeoraron el paisaje. Cuando llega la revolución de 1974 (la de “los claveles”), lo hace en una atmósfera de caos indescriptible, tanto en el bando del poder como en el bando de los militares sublevados. Durante todo ese tiempo hay una losa permanente que es el imperio colonial, el último de Europa. En todo caso, en los años setenta la miseria no era mayor que en los años veinte, ni tampoco el analfabetismo; al revés. Todas estas informaciones no son ningún misterio: está a disposición de cualquier redactor en cualquier enciclopedia. Es importante señalar estas cosas porque, si no, nos encontramos con una visión simplemente falsa de la realidad. Es bastante extravagante que los espectadores portugueses se acuerden de Salazar, que dejó la vida pública hace cuarenta años: la inmensa mayoría de quienes votaron en ese programa de televisión no le conocieron. Pero eso no da derecho a cubrir a los portugueses de improperios. A juzgar por las Noticias de La 2, Portugal es una nación de bestias ignorantes que desea volver a los años más siniestros de su historia por culpa de la televisión; a la crónica del corresponsal sólo le faltó proponer la inmediata anexión del país lusitano a España, para redimir a esta pobre gente postrada en la indigencia moral. Respecto a esos programas de televisión donde el público vota a la Historia, tienen el valor que tienen, es decir, poco. Pero justamente por eso es tan ridículo que La 2 haya utilizado el asunto para declarar una nueva Guerra de las Naranjas. Sosiego, por favor.
COMO O SALAZAR AJUDOU A ACABAR COM A REPÚBLICA ATÉ OS ESQUERDISTAS ESPANHOIS FICAM NERVOSOS... TENHAM CALMA QUE COMO TUDO FOI DESMANTELADO AGORA SOMOS É INVADIDOS...
PERTENCE CERTAMENTE AO submundo da blogosfera DE ACORDO COM CIENTÍFICAS CLASSIFICAÇÕES DUNS GAJOS QUE VIVEM DOS MEUS IMPOSTOS E ANDAM A AFUNDAR PORTUGAL
Monday, April 2, 2007
3 TONELADAS DE DROGA MARROQUINA
A PJ CAPTUROU UMA VIATURA COM 3 TON DE HAXE , A CAMINHO DE ESPANHA COM UM MARROQUINO AO VOLANTE.
SE IA PARA ESPANHA ENTROU POR ONDE?
UMA BOA PARTE DOS NOSSOS INTELECTUAIS QUEREM MAIS MANTEIGA PARA O POVO, MESMO QUE SEJA DE FORA ,MAS QUANTO A GASTOS EM SEGURANÇA DA FRONTEIRA EXTERNA DA UE , PRINCIPALMENTE QUANDO SE É O ELO FRAQUINHO... É DINHEIRO DEITADO À RUA... DIZEM ELES.
TEMOS FRONTEIRAS FURADAS COMO UM QUEIJO SUIÇO.
QUEM É O RESPONSÁVEL POR ISSO?
SE IA PARA ESPANHA ENTROU POR ONDE?
UMA BOA PARTE DOS NOSSOS INTELECTUAIS QUEREM MAIS MANTEIGA PARA O POVO, MESMO QUE SEJA DE FORA ,MAS QUANTO A GASTOS EM SEGURANÇA DA FRONTEIRA EXTERNA DA UE , PRINCIPALMENTE QUANDO SE É O ELO FRAQUINHO... É DINHEIRO DEITADO À RUA... DIZEM ELES.
TEMOS FRONTEIRAS FURADAS COMO UM QUEIJO SUIÇO.
QUEM É O RESPONSÁVEL POR ISSO?
O IRÃO PRECISA DE SER TRAVADO
From The Times
April 2, 2007
Bullying, manipulative Iran? No change there, then
The surprising thing is that we’re surprised by Tehran’s actions
Tim Hames
Oscar Wilde insisted that “life imitates art far more than art imitates art”. What would he have made of the present hostage crisis? Twenty-four hours before Iran seized 15 Britons its mission to the UN issued a statement expressing outrage at 300, a movie based on the Battle of Thermopylae in 480BC. In this epic struggle between a small band of Spartans and a massive army of Persians, the ancestors of modern Iran have been painted, the protest ran, as the “embodiment of evil, moral corruption”. They have a point. According to Paul Cartledge, Professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, Persia was “not a one-dimensional barbaric despotism” but, then again, it was “by no means well disposed to Greek-style democracy” either.
Not much seems to have changed in 2,500 years. The behaviour of Tehran over the past ten days has been akin to that of a one-dimensional barbaric despotism, while its contempt for the values of the democratic world is no less acute than it appears to have been in ancient history. Numerous explanations have been offered for this stand-off, including the vagueries of Persian New Year celebrations, long-standing confusion over where the exact boundary in these disputed waters lie and the ambition of the Revolutionary Guard to retrieve some of its men found conducting illegal activities deep inside Iraq. If these explanations are meant to make Iran’s stance seem more credible, then they fail. The real question that should be asked is “Why are we surprised?”.
This seizure is wholly consistent with Iran’s approach to foreign policy for the past three decades. It has been arming and directing Shia fanatics to attack British Forces in southern Iraq for the better part of four years. Its agents in Lebanon, Hezbollah, went into Israel last summer, killing eight troops and capturing two more of whom nothing has been heard since. Its other ally, Hamas, detained another Israeli soldier a little earlier and he too remains imprisoned. All these acts were in strict violation of international standards. Compared with these infamies, obliging soldiers to “confess” to offences that they never committed and publishing supposed letters to the British people must seem minor offences to Iran.
There is endless discussion about how to separate the “moderates” from the “radicals” in Tehran. It is a largely futile exercise. The blunt reality is that Iran has been a menace from the moment that Jimmy Carter, with monumental weakness, decided to force the Shah into exile and so permit Ayatollah Khomeni to return from Paris to assume control. Iran has sought to destabilise the Middle East peace process, undercut Lebanon’s sovereignty and undermine other regimes in the region for almost 30 years. It has done so while men lauded as “moderates” were state president. The Iranian regime has been the embodiment of theological Trotskyism: permanent revolution is the core of its collective ideology. So why are we surprised that it has taken this chance to treat British citizens so badly?
And what has been the response of most of the major powers throughout this period? It has been to express occasional disapproval while building up trade links. Even after the emergence of the firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad it has been business as usual. Over the past five years Iran has moved step by step to be in a position where it can possess nuclear weapons. It has met only limited resistance from a UN Security Council unwilling to do anything more than threaten minor economic sanctions. Iran has concluded, rationally from its perspective, that no one will challenge its attempt to dominate its neighbourhood. The presence of British troops there is an inconvenience. So why are we surprised that it has engineered the opportunity to intimidate them?
What will happen after this incident is over? Iran has every reason to assume that Britain will be more careful about where its forces are stationed. Any place in the vicinity of what could be regarded as Iranian territorial waters may quietly become out of bounds — which means that it will fall under de facto Iranian authority irrespective of cartography. The Iraqi Navy has less muscle than the Swiss one. It cannot impose itself on these awkward straits.
If Tehran calculates that the best way to push the British out of Basra is by turning up the heat, then that is what it will do — or else it might lie low if it concludes that this will hasten our departure. It will then ease into the vacuum. As it does, the smaller Gulf states, especially, will ask themselves whether it may be wiser to appease the Iranian monster rather than oppose its adventurism. So why are we surprised at such aggression against us?
The lasting lessons of this saga should be obvious. They are that Iran in the hands of the mullahs is not, as has been claimed in the past week, “erratic”, “incoherent” or “unpredictable”, but consistent in its outlook and objectives. They are that there will be no stability in the most potentially explosive part of the planet while this regime is permitted to operate as it has been doing. They are that the only plausible middle course between the unattractive choice of backing a military endeavour against Iran or accepting that Iran will have the Bomb is an economic blockade on a scale far larger than France or Germany, never mind Russia and China, have been ready to contemplate. That resolve, though, is essential. For if this is what Iran is already like, what on earth will happen if it ever commands nuclear weapons?
MESMO COM A OPOSIÇÃO DOS SEUS ALIADOS COMPRADOS POR EMPREGOS OU AJUDAS FINANÇEIRAS... OU DESPEITADOS INSIGNIFICANTES .
AQUELA REGIÃO SEMPRE DEU LUTA AO OCIDENTE DESDE OS GREGOS E ROMANOS.DEIXÁ-LOS POSSSUIR ARMAS NUCLEARES SÓ DE DOIDOS...
April 2, 2007
Bullying, manipulative Iran? No change there, then
The surprising thing is that we’re surprised by Tehran’s actions
Tim Hames
Oscar Wilde insisted that “life imitates art far more than art imitates art”. What would he have made of the present hostage crisis? Twenty-four hours before Iran seized 15 Britons its mission to the UN issued a statement expressing outrage at 300, a movie based on the Battle of Thermopylae in 480BC. In this epic struggle between a small band of Spartans and a massive army of Persians, the ancestors of modern Iran have been painted, the protest ran, as the “embodiment of evil, moral corruption”. They have a point. According to Paul Cartledge, Professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, Persia was “not a one-dimensional barbaric despotism” but, then again, it was “by no means well disposed to Greek-style democracy” either.
Not much seems to have changed in 2,500 years. The behaviour of Tehran over the past ten days has been akin to that of a one-dimensional barbaric despotism, while its contempt for the values of the democratic world is no less acute than it appears to have been in ancient history. Numerous explanations have been offered for this stand-off, including the vagueries of Persian New Year celebrations, long-standing confusion over where the exact boundary in these disputed waters lie and the ambition of the Revolutionary Guard to retrieve some of its men found conducting illegal activities deep inside Iraq. If these explanations are meant to make Iran’s stance seem more credible, then they fail. The real question that should be asked is “Why are we surprised?”.
This seizure is wholly consistent with Iran’s approach to foreign policy for the past three decades. It has been arming and directing Shia fanatics to attack British Forces in southern Iraq for the better part of four years. Its agents in Lebanon, Hezbollah, went into Israel last summer, killing eight troops and capturing two more of whom nothing has been heard since. Its other ally, Hamas, detained another Israeli soldier a little earlier and he too remains imprisoned. All these acts were in strict violation of international standards. Compared with these infamies, obliging soldiers to “confess” to offences that they never committed and publishing supposed letters to the British people must seem minor offences to Iran.
There is endless discussion about how to separate the “moderates” from the “radicals” in Tehran. It is a largely futile exercise. The blunt reality is that Iran has been a menace from the moment that Jimmy Carter, with monumental weakness, decided to force the Shah into exile and so permit Ayatollah Khomeni to return from Paris to assume control. Iran has sought to destabilise the Middle East peace process, undercut Lebanon’s sovereignty and undermine other regimes in the region for almost 30 years. It has done so while men lauded as “moderates” were state president. The Iranian regime has been the embodiment of theological Trotskyism: permanent revolution is the core of its collective ideology. So why are we surprised that it has taken this chance to treat British citizens so badly?
And what has been the response of most of the major powers throughout this period? It has been to express occasional disapproval while building up trade links. Even after the emergence of the firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad it has been business as usual. Over the past five years Iran has moved step by step to be in a position where it can possess nuclear weapons. It has met only limited resistance from a UN Security Council unwilling to do anything more than threaten minor economic sanctions. Iran has concluded, rationally from its perspective, that no one will challenge its attempt to dominate its neighbourhood. The presence of British troops there is an inconvenience. So why are we surprised that it has engineered the opportunity to intimidate them?
What will happen after this incident is over? Iran has every reason to assume that Britain will be more careful about where its forces are stationed. Any place in the vicinity of what could be regarded as Iranian territorial waters may quietly become out of bounds — which means that it will fall under de facto Iranian authority irrespective of cartography. The Iraqi Navy has less muscle than the Swiss one. It cannot impose itself on these awkward straits.
If Tehran calculates that the best way to push the British out of Basra is by turning up the heat, then that is what it will do — or else it might lie low if it concludes that this will hasten our departure. It will then ease into the vacuum. As it does, the smaller Gulf states, especially, will ask themselves whether it may be wiser to appease the Iranian monster rather than oppose its adventurism. So why are we surprised at such aggression against us?
The lasting lessons of this saga should be obvious. They are that Iran in the hands of the mullahs is not, as has been claimed in the past week, “erratic”, “incoherent” or “unpredictable”, but consistent in its outlook and objectives. They are that there will be no stability in the most potentially explosive part of the planet while this regime is permitted to operate as it has been doing. They are that the only plausible middle course between the unattractive choice of backing a military endeavour against Iran or accepting that Iran will have the Bomb is an economic blockade on a scale far larger than France or Germany, never mind Russia and China, have been ready to contemplate. That resolve, though, is essential. For if this is what Iran is already like, what on earth will happen if it ever commands nuclear weapons?
MESMO COM A OPOSIÇÃO DOS SEUS ALIADOS COMPRADOS POR EMPREGOS OU AJUDAS FINANÇEIRAS... OU DESPEITADOS INSIGNIFICANTES .
AQUELA REGIÃO SEMPRE DEU LUTA AO OCIDENTE DESDE OS GREGOS E ROMANOS.DEIXÁ-LOS POSSSUIR ARMAS NUCLEARES SÓ DE DOIDOS...
ECONOMIA DE CASINO E PROSTITUIÇÃO
Economia
São nove as salas em Portugal, sendo que uma é a maior da Europa…
Casinos geram milhõesOs nove casinos existentes em Portugal geraram no ano passado receitas de jogo de 355.298.435 euros, representando o Casino Estoril quase um terço (31,58 por cento) do montante total, com 112.205.110 euros, segundo dados da Associação Portuguesa de Casinos.
SÓ FALTA LEGALIZAREM A PROSTITUIÇÃO(COM O QUE EU CONCORDO) E A EXEMPLO DOS "CIRCUITOS GAY" "PROMOVEREM" A NOVA IMAGEM DEMOCRÁTICA DE PORTUGAL...
São nove as salas em Portugal, sendo que uma é a maior da Europa…
Casinos geram milhõesOs nove casinos existentes em Portugal geraram no ano passado receitas de jogo de 355.298.435 euros, representando o Casino Estoril quase um terço (31,58 por cento) do montante total, com 112.205.110 euros, segundo dados da Associação Portuguesa de Casinos.
SÓ FALTA LEGALIZAREM A PROSTITUIÇÃO(COM O QUE EU CONCORDO) E A EXEMPLO DOS "CIRCUITOS GAY" "PROMOVEREM" A NOVA IMAGEM DEMOCRÁTICA DE PORTUGAL...
FALSOS COMPLEXOS COLONIAIS...
Por isso defende que a colonização começa no séc. XX, e não no XV.Quis dinamitar o mito dos "cinco séculos de colonização/exploração". Como falar de "cinco séculos" em que o colonizador não aparece, senão na viragem do século XIX para o XX? Para destruir este mito que tanto mal fez a Portugal, nada melhor do que o estudo da sua história militar colonial desde 1800. É uma evidência que para haver colonização é preciso haver colonos. Ora, as estatísticas oficiais, apesar de frágeis, mostram que a esmagadora maioria dos colonos estavam concentrados em Luanda. Mesmo em 1900 - admitamos que havia dez mil europeus -, o povoamento branco era minúsculo. Durante décadas crescerá muito lentamente. Penso mesmo que, em 1900, metade dos futuros angolanos, no mínimo, nunca tinha visto um único branco. Sei que a África portuguesa nunca foi o Jardim do Éden, mas foi pior nas outras colónias tropicais europeias. A diferença é que as suas metrópoles nunca reivindicaram nem cinco, nem quatro, nem três (à excepção da África do Sul) séculos de colonização.Estudou a política colonial de vários regimes. Há grandes diferenças entre monárquicos, republicanos, a ditadura militar e Salazar? Não houve grandes diferenças entre a monarquia e a I República no plano militar, à excepção talvez de os oficiais da república não hesitarem em empregar métodos radicais. Salazar herda uma situação militar "calma", o que convém à sua visão contabilística: o império deve não só bajular o orgulho nacional da metrópole, como também contribuir para enriquecê-la. Em 1930 e 1940, era a ambição admitida por todos os colonizadores, europeus e japoneses. Salazar trouxe continuidade na gestão governamental e evitou a perda de parte ou de todo o seu império para os aliados. Mas, prisioneiro do mito da unicidade do caso português, esclerosou-se, acreditando poder escapar, só, ao desaparecimento dos impérios ultramarinos, mais ricos e desenvolvidos do que o seu. Vítima do mito dos cinco séculos, não quis ver as realidades e preparar o futuro. A sua obstinação transformou-se em pesadelo para a maioria dos portugueses, de 1961 a 1975. E bem depois.Chamou às colónias "antídoto" psicológico para "a falta de confiança, pessimismo e complexo de inferioridade dos portugueses". Continua a pensar assim?Não. Desde 1974-75 parece que o português médio retomou confiança no seu futuro europeu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)