A really cool video...

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara

I've found on Youtube a really cool video, which I very much encourage you to watch. Please click on the title to be redirected to Youtube. 

Justice, punishment and truth...

  Yesterday I had the wonderful opportunity to meet a handful of women, whom are the wives of some of the military men putted in jail by the Kirchner's regime, for alledge crimes against humanity performed during the last (bloody, horrible, terrible) coup d'etat, back in the 70's.

Before going forward, please let me be real clear to you: I DESPISE, REJECT, REGRET AND CONDEMN such terrible times, completely against the classical liberal line of though I adopt as my ruling philosophy of life.

For exactly that same reason, and due to the fact that classical liberalism understands that the lives, the properties and the liberty of all human beings (not relativism allowed here) are sacred, I condemn the actions of both parties at the terrible civil war that took place in Argentina back then. Both, the military in power and the leftist guerrillas killed, kidnapped, and stole from other individuals. Hence, in  my perspective, the individuals on both sides whom committed those crimes are equally criminals.

Having said that, please let me share with you my experience yesterday. During the release of a book which I have pending reading (but knowing the author personally I can assume that it'll be a joy to read), I've met the wives of three former officers, whom were found guilty by some judges (appointed to the office by Kirchner), and whom are currently in jail.

One of them told me that during the trial, the former military's  (a Malvinas - Falklands war hero) lawyer proved that the accused military was getting married on the date the alleged victim of tortures witness claimed to be tortured by him!! She claimed that on such date, at 8:00 am, she was first tortured by the military accused, but the defense provided with official evidence that that exact date, at 9:00 am, the guy was getting married!! The witness also claimed that the day after, at 8:00 am, she was tortured again by the same defendant. And to that the military's lawyer reply to the Judge: "Your Honor, we have here with us the wife of Lt.__. She could provide us all with detailed information of what  her newly wed husband was doing that day, at that time, which happened to be the first day of their honeymoon". 

Dismissed... The court understood that the evidence provided by the defendant was "circumstantial", and so through the military in jail. The guy, at the time, was... 21 years old.

 I must tell you...It was shocking to see these brave, upheld, and respectable women, crying out for justice to their husbands. When one of them started to sob, the other one approached her saying "Don't cry!! You know what happens when one of us cry..." And as she said it, she herself started to sob also. And so did the third one.

I tended to offer my help, but not as a lawyer, since I don't practice criminal law. But it occurred to me that maybe I could use this blog to let you, the international community, know more about that side of the story, have more information and reach fairer judgments regarding this sad and dark times of Argentine history. And so I though that maybe they could tape a short video, introducing themselves and telling briefly their stories, so I could captioned it in English and post them here.

The three of them, at the very same time, kindly thanked me for the offering, but rejected the idea. Consequences -for me- could be terrible. Persecution, threats, phone calls at late hours advising them to shout up since the caller knew the whereabouts and activities of all their children... nothing that they would putted me through.

I know that some stuff, in that sense, is going on. But don't know, neither have proof of how intense and often happens.

Even though they said that it may have terrible consequences for me to get involved with them and their side of the story, I'll try to convince them to go ahead with the videos project. So hopefully, this is the first post of many more to come, for those of you interested in knowing more about the TRUTH of the terrible civil war that shed our country in blood, long time ago, but not as long as to    set us free of the pain.

Unfortunately, this government realized that it's wonderful business for them to keep the wounds open. This is a very, small, little, humble intend to help moving towards closure and pacification.

Spooky...

Yesterday, Cristina Fernandez, a woman whom shall enter history as one of the most corrupt and despicable (in spite of the 54% of the votes which putted her in office) presidents of this poor country, decided to take a decisive step towards communism, and ruled expropriation of the shares held by Repsol in YPF, one of the most important oil companies of the world.  

YPF was privatized in 1993 by former (and also outrageously corrupt) president Carlos Menem. In 1998, Repsol, the Spanish oil company, bought the majority shares. A small percentage of the shares remained the national government's, the producer provinces' government's and the public, being listed in the Buenos Aires and New York Stock Exchanges.  

In 2007, a group of also very close friends of the Kirchner's regime, the Skenazis, bought almost 15% of the shares, becoming the second largest shareholder. The Skenazis are a family of well-known businessmen, whom totally fit the most basic description of crony-capitalism. The friends of Cristina and late (extremely corrupt also) husband Nestor proved to be not as good friends as to put their money where their mouths were, due to the small returns of the investments in YPF, causing the rage of the insane Cristina.  This rage expanded towards Repsol, and based upon accusations of breach of the upstream operations promised upon purchase of the shares, she decided to expropriate and putted us in the very same level as Venezuela is: enemies of the developed and peaceful nations of the world.  

Is not quite clear yet whether the investments were made or not. However, I tend to believe that they weren't actually. The question is why? Why Repsol and the Skenazis wouldn’t performed the upstream works? And the answer lies on a plain and simple reason: low returns.  

BUT, low returns are due to the fixed price policies ruled by the very same government, which fixed the selling price of the barrel at U$S 42, while Brazil is selling at U$S 109, for instance. Hence, the friendship between the two mafia families blurred, leaving us, former citizens now subjects of a illegitimate kingdom, hostess of the mafia war which has already started.  

Expropriation of the YPF shares owned by a very powerful Spanish oil company shall not be dismissed by the Spanish. Yesterday, The Telegraph of London said that the Spanish shall seek a U$S 10 Billion compensation from the argentine government. So, how all these impacts and affects us, the plain vassals? In a very sad manner... 

Argentines are prone and kin to accept whatever political turmoil you could imagine. Going back to  as recently as the 70’s, Argentina experienced perhaps the darkest times of its history. In 1973 Peron[ [1]  passed being in power, and his widow (sounds familiar??) took office as natural successor, given that she was Peron’s Vice President. 

A violent pro-leftist guerrilla developed, given the chaotic –both economically and politically- environment arouse after Peron’s death and during the widow’s term. This gave room to the bloody and shameful military coup, which ruled the country under a terror regime for 7 years [2]. 

After 7 terrible, sad, bloody and dark years of military regime, democracy was restored with President Alfonsin, whom although a human rights hero, had a lousy government which left Argentina in 1989 suffering a hiper inflation process. By July 1989, inflation rose to an outrageous 196%  [3].

Elected president Menem took power in July 1989, six months earlier than his due time. Ruled the country for 10 years, stabilizing inflation with a monetary policy which fixed the price of the peso to the price of the dollar, in a $1 – U$S 1 exchange rate. During his first term, he managed to amend the Constitution in order to shorten the presidential term from 6 to 4 years, and allow re-election in second terms. He privatized most of the utilities state owned companies, opened the economy to foreign investment, liberalized the international trade and stole as much money as possible. Corruption was rampant and the fixed exchange rate made it inconvenient to produce in Argentina, leaving many people unemployed. Nevertheless, people voted for him, again, in 1995. 

By the second half of 2001 President De la Rua (who took power as part of a multi-party coalition which presented itself as the anti-Menem decent candidates) faced the reality of being impossible to hold monetary $1-U$S1 policy, and ruled the “corralito” (small-farmyard)  which, in order to avoid a bank run forced the people to use debit cards instead of cash. This was the very first step of later worse measures which ended up with the “pesification” of all debts in dollars. In a nutshell, the corralito had the very opposite effects wanted by the government. People flew to the banks to withdrew their deposits, and took the streets banging pots, claiming the resignation of De la Rua [4]. The “good times” were over, and another economic turmoil took place. 

All these gave room to Nestor Kirchner’s first (and only) term which started in 2003 as the result of a very smart political move, with compliments from Menem. In ten days, between December 20, 2001 and January 2, 2012, Argentina had 4 (FOUR) different civilian presidents, all of them Peronist, of course. On June 2002 there was a massive protest of leftist groups, which ended up with the death of two activists and the end of Eduardo Duhalde’s presidency. 

As of 2003, Kirchner paid in full the debt held with the IMF, but took loans from another “friend” –Hugo Chavez-. While the IMF charged 3%-4%, Chavez charged 12% for his friendly loans, but people were ecstatic with the idea of a strong president, whom stood up to the US, the IMF and other “foreign imperialists”. A small note on this: Kirchner default U$S 18.300 Million of unpaid bonds held by dissatisfied creditors whom didn’t accept the payment plan offered by Kirchner in 2005. 

In October 2010 Kirchner passed. His wife, Cristina, was already in power (as of 2007). In 2008 a major civil –peaceful – revolution took place, led by the countryside producers of soy and other agricultural products, which were intended to be imposed with a new export duty, on top of the many taxes already affecting the production. 

In October 2010 Kirchner passed. And in October 2011 his widow, Cristina Fernandez, won the elections for her second term. 

The Kirchners were lucky to rule the country with an amazingly good international price for Argentina’s one of top products, the soybean, and a simultaneous lack of scruples. Kirchner’s rampant corruption differs from Menem’s in the sense that the Kirchners had (have) a strong leftist ideology. However, Nestor’s ideology was clearly superficial and fake, given that even though he cried out against the corporations, business and international investors “whom took all our resources”, in the back he was always prone to do business (in his favor, of course), and knew that he could go up to a point, and not farer than that, in order to keep everybody happy: the mass and the crony-capitalist friends. Unfortunately, is not the same with his widow. 

While he shouted out loud against the US and capitalism, him and his wife unexplainably raised their fortune in U$S 26 million in a four years term!!! While, by the way, they were public servants… 

Upon his death, the barriers of pragmatism disappeared, giving room to the worsening of ideology and “21^st Century Socialism” ideas. The millions pouring into the country due to the taxes imposed on the producers of soy and other beans gave them room to move forward with populist ideas, and so, aside taking part in outrageous corruption episodes, they stated welfare benefits such as monthly payments to poor people, in exchange for nothing. The problem of the policy is not a philosophical one. Who would want the poor to be poor? Or even worse, who would want more people being poor. 

The problem lies on the fact that the money gave away in exchange of nothing, for so long time, had two major consequences: clientelism (poor people voting for them in order not to lose the welfare benefit), which brings along corruption; and incentives to remain unemployed, since working people does not qualify for the benefit…. Among many other undesirable, from the political AND philosophical perspectives, consequences. 

In brief, the Kirchners welfare system caused more poor people, less educated and more willing and able to cover their material needs exchanging supplies and money for their votes. 

So, what does all this have to do with the expropriation of YPF shares? It relates to the next upcoming crisis. 

In my opinion, the next crisis won’t be as easy to get out of as the previous ones were, due to the following reasons:

 ·       Argentina is not longer the rich, appealing, and interesting to invest country as it was in the past. This will leave Argentina alone, and isolated in a more and more globalized world.
·       Too many attacks to private properties and to institutionalism turn the country absolutely not desirable to invest.
·       Under this scope of expropriation and lack of the rule of law, there are no incentives whatsoever to invest in any production. Foreign capitals would never come and settled, and domestic capital will keep on fleeing.
·       Protectionist is rampant. Not a single pin could enter the country without the “permit” of a very sinister character appointed by Cristina as the “guardian of the argentine consumer”. This closing of international trade (particularly imports) left many industries unable to produce due to the lack of imported spare parts. Even worse, many patients can’t get the drugs they’re in the need to take, since imports of the drugs are also forbidden.
·       Such protectionism is leading to monopolies, and monopolies are deemed to offer low quality products at high prices, due to –precisely- the lack of competition.
·       Together with high prices shortage of supplies will also come along. Crony capitalism will regain strength, but as Cristina herself noted, not even close friends and business partners (as the Eskenazis) are willing to lose money for the “National and Popular” political project.
·       Violence is at the highest rates also. People dies daily to the hands of thieves who are, most of the times, on drugs. Even though the police and specialists advice not to challenge them, in the event of being the victim of a robbery, and give them everything, criminal acts are really violent and people still gets murdered even though they give away everything. On March 19^th, I was driving along a street next to a highway, bringing my kid back from school when two criminals came out of nowhere, and taking advantage of a bump which made me slow down, runned towards me waiving what seemed to be a gun. Fortunately, I noticed it was a piece of something different from a gun, so I decided to speed up. When I passed him by, he banged on my windshield so violently that he broke it to pieces. My kid, and me too, got terrible scared. But, thanks God, it was a VERY cheap outcome.
·       Back in 2008, three young men appeared dead in a nearby location. The bodies were handcuffed in the back, and there was tape in the mouths. It was obviously a mafia crime. Not long after, two Colombian men were caught after acting as hit-men in a major mall parking lot. They had killed a man getting off a car. As I write this, in plain downtown, a couple of blocks away from the Court House, last night a colombian man was killed by a hit man, who shot the colombian 3 shoots on the back and 2 on the head, and fleed. The first two episodes mentioned (particularly the first one) showed the fact that Mexican Sinaloa Drug Cartel is already operating in Buenos Aires. As of then, plenty of journalists’ reports proved the fact that Argentina was not longer a “transit” country, but a “producer” country. Drug mafias are already performing here. That’s a fact. And social environments where there’s a lack of republican institutions and the Judiciary power is not independent and corrupt are the breeding ground for drug cartels and other organized crime groups.
·       Demography has dramatically changed. The welfare benefits of giving away pesos for each child born, in spite of the fact that the child’s family were really in need of receiving the funds cause a whole set of incentives. For instance, in the greater Buenos Aires area, there are teen-age moms whom have found the way to have money without working, and that is getting pregnant. I live in a Greater Buenos Aires area named Tortuguitas, and it’s amazing to see young girls carrying babies in strollers… already pregnant. These girls most likely haven’t finished high-school and they don’t work either. They live with their families (which are very large), in small places and all together can make a decent amount adding up the welfare benefits paid by the government to each of them. In 10 years time there will be more people in need to be supported by the government than people producing and paying taxes for the government to distribute among the first mentioned. Most of the people in need won’t have any education nor working skill, since teachers of public schools are nowadays most of the time on strike. Children attending public school can finish elementary school… and barely write and read! I’ve seen it! It is true!.



 So, how all this YPF situation affect us, the common citizen who works, study, buy, pay taxes and live decently, without hurting anybody and doing his/her best to raise his / her family? Well, basically expropriation involves a major break of the rule of law. This, of course, discourages greatly any productive investment, fearful of –eventually- becoming “the enemy” and being expropriated. Given this fact, only very few extra addict to risk and/or friends of Cristina will be willing to invest, knowing that they’d be granted (either formally or informally) with a monopoly which –at the same time- will allow them to produce low quality items and sell them at expensive prices. 

On the macro side, even though the soybean remains a good business due to the international prices, it is possible that producers (whom are in large number investors not attached to the farm itself) decides to fly-to-quality and leave the country. If so, production would lowered and so would taxes and export duties. The government shall continue to use the reserves deposited at the Central Bank, which By-Laws were recently amended as to allow Cristina the discretional use of the money, but even almighty powerful state runs short of cash sometime… and if the cash supplier (the tax payer) lose weight, most likely the cash consumer will too. So, at some point Cristina won’t have the money to support YPF’s activities, pay pensions and retirements, support the outrageously amount of (roughly) 2.5 Million public employees (at national government level alone), and the many million benefits and welfare subsides which keeps people in poverty. Without jobs, education and development opportunities, it’d take strong decent spirits not to fall for the drug production –marketing alternative. And this may bring nothing but violence, death and suffering, for a large amount of people.



 YPF expropriation is not a matter of sovereignty or nationalism. It’s a matter of a personal, insane project of a crazy woman, whom was diagnosed as a bipolar patient, surrounded and seduced by a group of young, unscrupulous people whom noticed that the suffering widow needed someone to drive her government. This is barely starting. I’m very pessimistic about the near future, since this is not longer the very same Argentina which had the skills to overcome economical and political crisis, over and over and over again…

---

[1] A populist leader which started his political carreer as a prominent military officer of the group of military men which took power in 1942

[2] Not a matter of this post, but just a short mention regarding the guerrillas and the military. I was 9 years old when the coup took place. My parents were not involved in any politics whatsoever. My dad was a small businessman and my mom a housewife, pretty busy taking care of my younger brother whom, by them, was recovering from a very bad cancer. I quite vividly I remember my dad in the mornings, shaving and listening to the radio. His commonly asked question, to himself, was, “when are “they” going to take power?” By “then” he meant the military. My dad’s expectations were not moved by any other desire of living in a pacified society, not scared to be caught in the middle of a shooting between the police (and para-military forces) and the guerrillas. This same expectation and consent for the military to rape the Constitution and to take power was pretty much shared by the civil society. No military coup was ever able to happen without the civilian consent.

[3] Again, a brief comment on this. By 1989 I was 21years old. I have VERY CLEAR memories of those times. Given that the Austral (the argentine money at the time) was worth nothing, people rushed in the mornings to the supermarkets to purchase food, knowing that by the very same afternoon, with the very same amount, they could buy half what they’ve got in the mornings. This, of course, led to a shortage of supplies, so supermarkets decided to sell, for instance, just a pack of sugar per person. I remember my mom, my brother and myself getting on line so we could have three packages of sugar and other items

[4] This wasn’t  way too different from what “people” claimed in 1976. The difference laid in the fact that by 2001 no military was willing nor able to took power, neither the people supported them. This time, people wanted an institutional way out of the terrible De la Rua’s government.

Why?

A couple of weeks in the US  were, besides a very fun vacation time with family and dear friends, a great opportunity to notice the big differences between that country and mine, Argentina.

While there, a phony primary election took place in Argentina. Good thing I wasn't here, but really bad to have my vacations disturbed by two sad circumstances: 1) the passing of a very closed and dear uncle of mine, and  2) the passing of all the hope I could have had of seeing Cristina Kirchner defeated in the national elections coming October.

By an overwhelming 50% she was the winner of the "primary", and -according to La Nacion newspaper- her acollytes are already plotting a Constitutional reform, hosted by Supreme Court (and "friend") Raul Zaffaroni,  which would have no other goal than to shape all necessary legalities to allow her to remain in power for good, or at least untill the income from the high price of our exported soya beans commodities keep pouring in.

 Long ago an American client said to me  "Miami is the closest to the US you could get". It was an obvious joke, but not that far from the truth. Having spent a week in Orlando before going to Miami makes me agree 100% with my client. Things are different there, from how they're in Latin America, in Argentina.

So the question is unavoidable... why? Why are we so negatively different? Why can't we behave in a more civilized, proper manner? Why  is it so difficult for us -"Argies"- to behave in a decent, considerate manner? I'd go with this guess: INCENTIVES.

In Argentina, if you go to a Burger King or a McDonald's, be prepared to clean up the mess left behind in the table you'd want to use. In the US, everybody cleans up their mess when they're done.

In the photo, August 24th, 2011 - Miami International Airport, Gate J18, right after the last call to board Aerolineas Argentinas, Flight 1303 to Buenos Aires. Guess where the majority of the crowd sitted in the area came from...



In the US, the "refill" of sodas is a normal, regular commercial custom. Were such a system exist in Argentina, it may well happen that someone would go to one of the restaurants stocked with a bunch of empty bottles, buy one soda just to have the right to refill the glass, and would load the bottles abusing of the "refill right".

In Argentina, major traffic jam could take place at any given intersection, since the one-first-then-the other habit doesn't exist. Instead of  having one car from the left side come, and then another one from the right side do it, in Argentina everybody would have the cars stucked to the one before, so the others would never be able to pass. Hope you've got what I mean...

In Argentina, "getting on line" is a gladiator's task. People stands so close to each other that they eventually touch the person before or behind, since there's virtually no room between them. This -of course- has a reason. Weren't they doing this, and were the people on line leaving some room between them... a wise-guy slippery may find his or her place on line... way beyond what it would have been his or her place on line.

So... why? Why all these happens? Why things in the US works, and in Argentina everything is so chaotic and complicated to deal with? I would say "It's the incentives, stupid!". But this statement leads me to wonder what kind of incentives am I thinking of?

Is it the criminal law system? Maybe. The threat of going to jail or pay a fine could well be understood as a powerful persuasive tool not to break the rules.Would such threat (kept in time) become an incentive, would originate a regular, common social behavior? Probably. In any event, what such threat would eventually cause is the belief in the rules. But for this to happen, two things would have to occur: first,  consequences of chosen behavior must be effective and sustained in time. For instance, many traffic signals in the US includes not only the order, but also the information of applied fines in case of disobedience. I've found this really interesting for two reasons: 1) rules are clear and apply to every one who meets the requirement: disobedience has consequences, and 2) it acknowledges the fact that the individual is free to choose between being a law binding citizen or a lawbreaker. 

Second, the rules must be logical, rational and benefitial for the whole. Rules must become a reflection of "institutions", in the understanding of the noun as applied by Douglas North. Institutions, for this author, are the behaviors conducted by individuals above and beyond any coercion, for the mere reason that such conducts were proved more efficient over others.

Or, in a nutshell, in the US one can witness the every day practice of the "Rule of Law".

In Argentina, there's no such thing as the "Rule of Law". Laws and rules are deemed -in generally accepted terms- to be broken. A no parking sign is just a suggestion. It's outrageous to see the several many cars parked just next to the sign. The consequences? None.Unless it's parked in a highly controlled area, such as downtown, where the towing system is runned by a private company, which collects a percentage of all towed cars, payed by the local government. A private company whit plenty of incentives to tow away cars.

It's highly unlikely that a car would stop in a corner to let the pedestrians cross. Streets are filled with dog's poo, since there are no consequences for the owner of the dog who leaves the poo there (although I must say that this has been seriously improved since my younger years, and most of dog owners clean up after the doggie went). In the subway (or other public transportation) is amazing to see the epidemy of narcolepsy affecting men sitting when a pregnant woman, an elder or a handicap person gets in...

Even further, politicians with enough power and money (which is the same) may well ammend (or at least try very hard to do so) the Constitution, so they adapt it at their best interest. Constitution, as well as most of the rules in Argentina, is also another "suggestion". 


So, is it just the criminal law system? I would say that it has a great deal of impact (although criminal lawyers whom are known here as garantistas -such as Justice Zaffaroni- for their understanding of criminals as victims of society rather than victimazers, would certainly and emphatically disagree), but even more than the criminal law system itself, it's its the ENFORCEMENT of the rules what makes a huge difference between one country and the other.

In Argentina, incentives to break the law are most of the times larger than those of binding it, since it's highly unlikely that such conducts were punished. Hence, do the maths... crime -in Argentina- pays.

In my opinion, corruption is so widely accepted because it´s just another step -at a higher level- of the misconducts daily performed by regular, common citizens, whom -had the chance- would do exactly as the corrupts does.

In a wider social scope, consequences for this complete lack of respect of the rules it's what keeps us so far away from the civilized USA. The Rule of Law is, in my opinion, the definition in two words of what David Hume so brightly putted almost 200 years ago: "There are three fundamental laws of justice: 1. stability of possession 2. transference by consent 3. performance of promises"

If breaking these three laws had no consequences at all, then there would be no incentives whatsoever not to break any other law. Rules, hence, would be mere representations of whatever could be understood as "good" intentions at any given historical time. But they wouldn't be -at all- useful tools to channel conducts and behaviors within the moral frame of freedom and liberty.  And that's exactly what's happening in Argentina, currently in jeopardy to suffer a regulatory OD (overdose).

For the US, in my opinion, the major challenge is not to let the government keep growing, and to continue the tradition of freedom and liberty which made them grand.

For Argentina, the major challenge is to understand the benefits of going along with the Rule of Law. In the short run, perhaps is more inconvenient to go on rounds looking for a parking space, instead of just leaving the car in a no parking area. But in the long run, it'll for certainly mean a huge advancement in political, economical and social improvements, for a much larger portion of the population that now.

So, in my opinion, the answer to why? is no other answer but because of the Rule of Law.

The Judge, the whores and the Swiss...

A quite old joke in Spanish language goes: "What does lawyers and whores has in common? They both charge their fees in advance, and after you've paid, you must beg them "please! Move!".

The "please, move" part may well be a consequence of the written system of justice that applies in Argentina, where except a handful of criminal cases (not even all of them) EVERY LEGAL PROCESS IS IN WRITTING. Hence, the lousy lawyers has large incentives to collect their fees up front, but not to follow through the whole process in a reasonable period of time, since the client barely has the will and the time to control the annoying judicial process.

A few days ago, a leftist oriented NGO - Fundación La Alameda- filed a case against a major celebrity of the judicial branch, Supreme Court Justice Raul Eugenio Zaffaroni, a leftist oriented judge, whom prior to being appointed SC Justice acted as a criminal judge, ruling outrageous judgments in favour always of criminals. For instance, in a shocking case, Judge Zaffaroni released the rapist of a young girl claiming that forcing her to perform oral sex to him could not be understood as rape, given that the girl did not suffer any penetration from the perpetrator.

The NGO filed a report against Zaffaroni, accusing him of being the owner of 16 apartments, 6 of them leased to high class prostitutes whom used them for their professional practice. Of course, the news broke a major fuzz, proper of this hypocrate society.

The funny part is that not long ago the queen - sorry, the president- Cristina Kirchner issued a presidential decree banning all sex advertisement published in the newspapers (usually known as to Class 59 ads), offering sexual services. Ha! Last week, Zaffaroni, one of her most distinguished acolytes was reported to be linked to a prostitution net, and suspected of being a pimp... aside from a Supreme Court Justice.

No one with a minimum common sense would believe that the judge was involved in the prostitution business, neither he collected any money from the prostitutes. In fact, Zaffaroni said that he appointed some administrators to manage his properties, and so he was negligent in controlling his representatives. But not even that should be reprehensible, since it's his problem with his properties and with his appointed managers.

What most certainly caught my attention, and not that of many more, from the published news in the media, is how come a public servant, a judge, whom spent most of his working life acting as a member of the judicial branch came to own 16 apartments, in one of the nicest neighborhoods of Buenos Aires??? 
Alledgely, the judge collects a pretty decent salary, but a regular salary at last.

Doing the maths, and being really conservative with the prices and figures, each of those apartments are worth value of not less than U$S 100,000 each. That makes a net wealth of U$S 1.6 Million (that's AR$ 6,4 Million). Let's make a rough estimate of the Judge's income for the last, say, 20 years, and fixed a constant value of U$S 7,5000 salary per month. That makes U$S 90,000 per year. In the last 20 years, the judge could have well made U$S 1,8 Million. Gross. Hence, out of his total income he saved 88% of his salaries, and lived with the remaining 12%. That's $216,000.

But let's be fair and expect some more extra income from conferences and book selling. Still, he managed to make so much money out of that, that he even managed to buy apartments in Rio de Janeiro and in Spain, and left some "small amount" in a swiss bank... 20 years ago. Wow! that's a financial wizard! I've attended the very same law school he did... and so far I managed to have a very small (also) savings acount in a US bank.... just in case, you know.

Zaffaroni is a well respected criminal law professor and publisher. Even people who are totally against his philosophical positions (for instance, his ideas of supporting criminals instead of victims, and blaming on "society" for their abandonment to poverty and social exclusion, later the cause of their criminal actions) admire his smartness and brightness. Not me. Of all the text books I had to read in law school, none of them made any sense to me, since at all times his positions forgets to consider THE most important element of all, when it comes to judge the criminal actions of a person: the free will of his acting.

Zaffaroni was appointed by late Nestor Kirchner in 2003, expecting him to become an ally at the time to hear and rule "Human Rights" cases that the former president planned to foster and encourage against the military whom were part of the last -and tragic- military regime started in 1976, which caused the dissapear of several many individuals. His leftist tendencies were well known and his simpathy for the leftist guerrillas also. Hence, he was the perfect "friend" to appoint at the major and most important institution of the Republic, the Supreme Court.

Nowadays, Zaffaroni cries out that he's being the target of a political harrasement due to his simpathy to the Kirchnerism regime. But what's really remarkable is that the reports against him were filed by an also leftist NGO. So, why would a leftist organization would go against him, also a leftist?

In a nutshell, Argentina is becoming closer and closer to any given fictional Banana Republic, far and away from all institutional and republican way of life.

Ok, go ahead, and please... Cry for me, Argentina. I'll do my best to wipe your tears..

Human rights for all

Populisms are prone to use and abuse egalitarian terms such as "all of us", "popular", "socially inclusion" and so on and so forth.

Cristina Fernandez, as a proper populist, is well prone to follow the path, and so she provided us with "Meat for all", "Pork for all", "Milk for all", "Milanesas for all" (1), and last -but not least- "LCD TVs for all" governement's fixed price policies. The tricky idea is that we are all the same, and we are all entitled (thanks to Her grace) to have meat, pork, milk, milanesas and TVs. And what about all the other countless goods and services necessary and market provided? Well... we are not. Some may have gas, fruits and coats, for instance, and some will not. Taugh luck. I wonder what's taking her so long to launch similar populist programs covering any and all goods and services. Maybe because she is not as strong as the market at the time to create the incentives to produce, offer and provide all those countless goods and services?

Anyway, the thing is that together with those uncovered goods and services, principles and values are also not "included" in the "for all" scheme, and so it was soundly proved this week with the results of the DNA tests forcedly conducted on Marcela and Felipe Noble Herrera, which produced negative when compared  to those of people dissapeared  during the last military coup in the 70's.

But, a bit history first. Upon taking power in 2003, and for the next five years, late Nestor Kirchner and Clarin (the largest newspaper of Argentina) got along well, and their relationship developed in quite good terms, given that Clarin's editorials were not opponent at all, but quite favorable to Kirchner's governement.

But such a good relationship came to an end by 2008 (for several reasons -some known and other presumed-), giving birth to one of the most outrageously unconstitutional, non-republican and even ilegal attacks to the media in democratic times. Never before, as of restoration of democracy in 1983, the governement went so viciously after a particular news group as Nestor first and Cristina later, did against Clarin.

A few examples of such abusive exercise of the political power conducted by this administration are:

• In 2009, without any reasonable cause, judge order or previous notice, the AFIP (similar to the IRS in the US) appeared at the door of the offices of the newspaper, alledgely to conduct an inspection due to a probable taxes fraud. Given the size (Clarin is one of the largest companies in Argentina) and the scope of the "war" against them, it is materially impossible for that company to conduct any taxes fraud and get away with it. Hence, such a Bruce Willis motion picture procedure against the paper had no other intention but to create fuss and fear in its executives. As soon as Clarin's TV newtwork's cameras and journalists showed up, the AFIP inspectors flew.

• In February 2010, Clarin published that in October of 2008, late Nestor Kirchner buyed U$S 2 Million for the purchase of a luxurious hotel in Calafate (a beautiful location in Kirchner's home province of Santa Cruz). The currency purchase AND the hotel purchase called the media attention, given the sound suspicions of Kirchner's corruption and ilegitimate wealth. Cristina reacted feriously claiming that Clarin's publishing was du to another "operation against them by the media monopoly"
• In August 2010, Cristina Fernandez accused Clarin and La Nación (the second largest Argentine newspaper) to conspire, in 1976, with the military governement against the then owners of the major paper producer (Papel Prensa S.A.) to ilegaly acquire the majority of the shares of the company.  The state holds 28% of the shares. The actual purpose of Cristina Fernandez was to challenge the purchase of the shares 30 something years ago, in order to expropiate Clarin and La Nacion the ownership of their majority shares, and appoint government acquaintances as new shareholders. Were the procedure successful for her ilegitimate purposes, Clarin and La Nacion would have went off, since not in a million years Cristina Fernandez would have allowed them to continue buying the paper for their publishings. Fortunately, the last hope of our fading republican system (the Judicial Power) putted an end to her crazy, totalitarian ambitions, and Papel Prensa remains in power of Clarin and La Nacion which proved their legitimate acquisition of the shares. 

• August 2010. The government issued an inconstitutional presidential decree  ruling the closing of Fibertel, the internet service provider owned by the Clarin group. The foundation? Fibertel it's a monopoly and therefore, its closing is in favor of "all" internet users. Fibertel compites with Speedy, Arnet, Sion, Movistar, Claro and several many other smaller companies which provides with internet access all over the country. Fortunately, the company followed all available processes before Courts and never interrupted the provision of the service. Many individuals -clients of Fibertel-, me among them, also filed remedies before Courts and against this outrageous and abusive rule.
• October 2010. By the time, they realized that their "cruzade" had little chances to succeed, so they went straight forward and sent a law to the congress, promoting that paper provission was a state matter of public interest, and hence, subject to further (and more discretionary) regulation. Again, fortunately,  it didn't work either. 
• March 2011. From November 2009, through March 2011, 5 times both papers, Clarin and La Nacion, were prevented from distributing their sunday issues, do to illegitimate blocking of their trucks. The last of them took place on January 2011, and was conducted by a group of 60 people whom claimed being former employees of Clarin fired without reason. The case was that neither of them was fired without reason but for disobeying previous court orders issued against them in labor law cases. One of them was secretely taped by Clarin during his meeting with the newspaper's executives and lawyers, asking for $ 9 million as alledgely deserved compensation... in payment for not blocking the paper's building.

 Aside from the direct attacks to Clarin and La Nacion newspapers, the Kirchner's government sistematically attacked the press in general terms, accusing them to promote her overthrown from power by misterious "powerful forces" against the "national and popular" government which provides for the poor and needy, and goes against the rich and powerful... (ironically speaking, of course).

Pursuing such a magnanimous crusade (and proper to all populism and colectivism systems) may well justify attacking the constitutional freedoms of speech, of press and of work, being this attack a minor cost to pay,in view of a larger end: the "national and popular" demands.

But there is nothing like it, and quite the opposite Kirchner's government's only intention is to eliminate the republic and remain in power for good. Within a democratic scheme such purpose can only be achieve by eliminating the press, strong and resourceful enough to point out major corruption cases affecting the Kirchner's administrations. 

In the midst of the "war against the powerful" (leaving them - the Kirchner's- aside, of course), Cristina Fernandez suffered a major defeat last friday, when Court ruled that the DNA tests of Marcela and Felipe Herrera Noble turned out negative against the DNA of dissapeared people during the military government back in the 70's.

Why? Because Marcela and Felipe are the adoptive children of Ernestina Herrera de Noble, owner of... Clarin Media Group.

The Kirchners had no problem whatsoever with sweeping along its fight against the newspaper these two human beings, stepping on their human rights of being forced to defend themselves in a terribly long and painful case, in which even the kirchnerist judge Sandra Arroyo Salgado issued a court order allowing the police to seize Marcela's and Felipe's underware...in public. Later Marcela told the press that the police made them undress before 7 people, and they kept her panties ("for the prosecution").


As noticed, we may have "milanesas para todos", but human rights are available only for those in favor of the Kirchner's regime.

(1) Milanesas are a typical argentine dish, made of fried thin slices of breaded meat.

In spite of all, happy Independence Day Argentina...

Today is Argentina's Independence Day.

195 years ago, 33 decisived men, involved in the politics of the time gathered at the Province of Tucuman to formally proclaim independence from the Spanish crown, which had been recovered by previously overthrown by Napoleon Bonaparte King of Spain, Fernando VII.

In 1816, the deputies attended the Congress formed at the Tucuman province, and declared the independence of the United Provinces of the River Plate, giving birth to what is Argentina nowadays.

195 years later, unfortunatelly there is little to celebrate. Although we are indeed free from Spain, we've became subdits of a new sort of "queen". The president in power -Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner- is neatly following his late husband's methods and procedures, which are obsessive concentration of power, contempt for the republican system of government and the rule of law, and an abusive use of the taxes collected due to an also outrageous tax burden on the tax-payers.

This year, the national holliday is the day before polling day for mayor of the city of Buenos Aires. Given the unitarian scheme of this country, Buenos Aires is the most important jurisdiction among all.

In order  to leave the voters in peace to consider and medidate their voting decisions, the elections law forbidds any and all political propaganda 48 hours previous to polling day.

The queen, I mean the president, hastily decided that such rule does not apply to her, and instead she went on with the campaing in favor of her candidate, Daniel Filmus. How she did it? She went on national brodacasting system, forcing us to see her on TV and listening on the radio, and decided to take part of the opening of a new building at the Ezeiza international airport. As La Nacion newspaper reports, the presidents hardly participates in openings of public and/or private works on saturdays, and even less in the main national holliday as the Independence Day..

The opening and the celebrations are great opportunities to address the nation, which shall either see her on TV or listening on the radio. One can argue that it's always possible to turn off the TV and the radio. And -fortunatelly- there'll be many peoply doing so, me among them. But there are two bigger problems: i) the message that goes out when a president acts as if she were beyond the law (the elections law, in this case), and ii) the message shall reach those not upset enough to turn off the radio and the TV.

And that's what turns this issue so sensitive when it comes to consider the institutional seriousness of this matter: if she, the main officer in charge, can break the law... why wouldn't we?

In spite of the lousy government we have today, and of the jeopardy of becoming Cuba... Happy birthday dear Argentina!