La opinion del Prof. Fernando Mires
Mood:  bright
Topic: FORUM
Por Fernando Mires
 
Chileno, catederatico de la
Universidad de Oldenburg, Alemania.


Chávez es un gobernante que insulta a casi todo el mundo. Ni siquiera los obispos y cardenales de la Iglesia católica escapan a su desmedida procacidad. A diferencias de Castro, quien posee un excelente uso del idioma, Chávez tiene serias dificultades para articular una frase con otra, y por eso, podría pensarse, suplanta la retórica con el insulto. Sin embargo, hay en su enorme capacidad de injuria, un propósito que obedece -conciente o inconscientemente- a un cálculo muy frío.
 
Los de Chávez son insultos cuidadosamente programados destinados a crear una zona de hipertensión emocional e impedir así que la política se articule en torno a algo que no sea  el mismo.

De este modo, él neurotiza la vida política hasta tal punto, que resulta imposible, en medio de tanta injuria -las que sus seguidores de "camisas rojas", multiplican- que los polos que se forman alrededor de su persona puedan encontrar algún medio civilizado de comunicación.

Efectivamente: lo primero que sorprende a un visitante en Venezuela, es que después de siete años de gobierno, Chávez ha conseguido partir al país político en dos pedazos.

Esos pedazos no son de izquierda o de derecha. Pues a un lado están quienes aman a Chávez. Al otro lado, los que lo odian. Entre ambos no hay ninguna conexión. Quienes eran amigos, ya no lo son. Quienes se respetaban, se desacreditan mutuamente. Nadie discute con nadie.

Chávez ha conseguido destruir la polémica, condición de la política, e introducir en su lugar dos monólogos paralelos. El mismo monologa sin limitación de tiempo (hasta siete horas) en su programa semanal, mientras las "camisas rojas" aplauden las vulgaridades más grandes que es posible oír de nadie (ni siquiera en Berlusconi, quien en materia de vulgaridades es vicecampeón mundial).
 
Si alguien ha leído relatos de los primeros años del fascismo en Italia no se sorprenderá si los encuentra de nuevo en Venezuela.

La comunicación política ha sido destruida radicalmente por el propio gobernante. Y la destrucción de la comunicación política es la primera condición para todo proceso de facistización. Eso es lo que está viviendo Venezuela. "Esto va a terminar muy mal", me dicen muchos venezolanos. "Que Dios no los oiga", les digo yo.
 
Naturalmente, también hay chavistas inteligentes. Pero cada vez que uno habla de Chávez, dicen -como avergonzados- que lo principal no es Chávez, sino el proceso del cual Chávez es sólo un símbolo. "¿Cuándo habían alcanzado los pobres más representación que durante Chávez? En eso hay que fijarse", dicen. "Chávez es secundario", afirman.  Pero, ¿es que se puede hablar del proceso sin Chávez? Chávez está en todas partes, nadie realiza una "misión" (palabra militar-clerical) sin su autorización. Nadie tiene ninguna idea que no sea de Chávez.

Él, como el mismo se definió, es el coach del equipo. Eso quiere decir que él decide quién jugará o no. "Ah pero Chávez ha llevado a los pobres a la sociedad", dicen los chavistas inteligentes. ¿A cúal sociedad? - se pregunta uno, asombrado.
 
No importa que en Chile, Argentina, Brasil, tengan lugar políticas sociales más importantes y sobre todo más racionales que las que han tenido lugar en Venezuela.

Lo decisivo es que Chávez, a diferencia de los gobernantes de esos países, no ha integrado a los pobres a la sociedad, sino que al Estado. Sin suprimir la pobreza, Chávez la ha estatizado. Las misiones, entre otras tantas iniciativas populistas, son los cordones umbilicales que atan a los pobres con el Estado. Y el Estado es Chávez.

Los pobres son de Chávez; por eso deben seguir siendo pobres. Si, hay por cierto, algunos chavistas inteligentes. Pero no lo son tanto como para reconocer que Chávez no representa un proyecto de sociedad, como ellos imaginan, sino que, antes que nada y sobre todo,  un proyecto de toma de poder.
 
Las misiones, los círculos bolivarianos, los comandos de "camisas rojas" son medios para tomar el poder desde abajo. La constitución (a quien él en su estilo llama: "la bicha"), el escudo, la bandera, sobre todo Bolívar, todos los poderes simbólicos de una nación, han pasado a ser propiedad de Chávez quien los modifica o interpreta según su antojo. Chávez intenta tomar el poder desde todos lados. Desde abajo, desde el medio, y por supuesto, por arriba cuando haciéndose aclamar en "foros mundiales" despotrica en nombre de la justicia universal, en contra de su ultimo descubrimiento: el  "imperialismo norteamericano".
 
Pero Chávez no es antiimperialista. Chávez es en primera línea, antidemócrata. Por eso ha insultado, de la manera más soez, a diferentes gobernantes y políticos democráticos de América Latina. Lagos, Fox, Toledo, Uribe, Lourdes Torres, entre tantos, han debido sufrir las injurias de Chávez.

Nadie ha insultado en su vida a tantas personas decentes como ha hecho Chávez. No obstante, se equivocan aquellos que piensan que Chávez insulta por insultar. Como ha sido dicho, sus insultos, cuidadosamente calculados, forman parte de su estrategia de poder. Mediante el insulto, destruye las posibilidades del diálogo político, tanto hacia el interior como hacia el exterior del país.

Y donde no hay política, comienza el terror. La creciente ocupación de la administración pública por personeros militares, es el ejemplo más visual de la corrosión de la política que tiene lugar en Venezuela. Mientras en el pasado los militares latinoamericanos tomaban el poder de golpe, en Venezuela lo toman en "cámara lenta". El segundo paso, será la militarización de la nación, y es desde ese objetivo que hay que entender los llamados del Presidente a defender al país de una invasión norteamericana.
 
El objetivo de Chávez es, evidentemente, provocar un clima de alta tensión con los EEUU. Sus injurias a Bush han ido aumentando en cantidad y en volumen. Exasperado tal vez porque el gobierno de  EE UU no pisa (todavía) la trampa, ha agredido en los términos más repugnantes que es posible imaginar, a Condolezza Rice, algo que nunca habría hecho un Fidel Castro (dictador, pero educado).
 
La verdad es que Venezuela no tiene ningún problema real con los EE UU: ni económico, ni territorial, ni de ninguna índole. A diferencias de Castro quien siempre arremete verbalmente en contra de USA sobre la base de problemas concretos, Chávez arremete gratuitamente, con el objetivo más que evidente, de provocar un conflicto internacional.

Ahora bien, en una situación de alta tensión internacional, Chávez intentará dividir al país entre "patriotas antiimperialistas", y "esbirros al servicio del imperialismo". De este modo, estar en contra de Chávez significará "traicionar a la patria". Los ataques a EE UU son, evidentemente, una pieza clave en  su proyecto de toma total del poder.
 
Va ser muy difícil para la oposición democrática de Venezuela terminar con el chavismo. El régimen no sólo controla el Estado (y el petróleo) sino que se ha infiltrado hacia el interior de la sociedad civil. Los comandos chavistas actúan en las provincias, pueblos y barrios, y la violencia crece "hacia dentro". El chavismo controla, además, los medios de recuento electoral. Y desde el exterior, los Ramonet y los Chomsky (y la izquierda festiva que les sirve de coro) están dispuestos a legitimar cualquiera monstruosidad siempre que sea antinorteamericana.
 
Es cierto que Chávez llegó al poder como consecuencia de la corrosión de la democracia venezolana, y esa es la deuda histórica que tienen los dos principales partidos con su nación. Pero siete años ya es suficiente castigo.

Es cierto también que en Abril del 2002, una fracción enloquecida de la oposición, siguiendo el juego a Chávez, se embarcó en una aventura golpista. Gracias a esa aventura, realizada a espaldas de la mayoría de la oposición (justo en el momento cuando Chávez estaba políticamente cercado) Chávez obtuvo como regalo una legitimación democrática que, el menos que nadie, puede ostentar.
 
Pero poco a poco, la oposición ha ido ordenando sus filas. Chávez intentará destruirla al crear una línea divisoria "o Venezuela o los EEUU". Si la oposición estará en condiciones de imponer la verdadera línea divisoria que atraviesa a Venezuela, que es la de "chavismo o democracia" (o incluso, "fascismo o democracia") es algo que está por verse. Pero si la oposición triunfa -y un día, más temprano que tarde triunfará-  puede que ese no sea un triunfo de "la izquierda". En cualquier caso, será un triunfo de la democracia. Pero, antes que nada, será, un triunfo de la decencia.

A Tale of Two Opposition Candidates
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: FORUM

A Tale of Two Opposition Candidates

Brazil, Venezuelan challengers have similar backgrounds

Alfredo Ascanio (askain)     

  

Gerardo Alckmin, a 54 year-old middle class doctor, abandons the governorship of the State of Sao Paulo and becomes the main opposition candidate in the campaign against the incumbent president of Brazil, Lula Da Silva. Manuel Rosales, a 52 year-old politician, also resigns his governorship of Zulia state to run against the present president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

Alckmin, of the Social Democrat Party, was a councilman, then mayor or manager of the city of Sao Paulo, and then governor of the State of Sao Paulo. Rosales, also of the Social Democrat Party, he was likewise councilman and mayor of the City of Maracaibo and then governor of Zulia state.

These two politicians qualify as low profile if compared with the prominence and the rhetorical speech of Lula and of Chavez. But although these two politicians are perceived as uninspiring, they have achieved, in little time, a percentage of intention of the vote between 30-35 percent due to their persistence and due to voters' responsiveness to their criticism of the incumbents.

Lula and Chavez both have around 50 percent support from likely voters, but are on a downward trend. The candidates Alckmin and Rosales are denouncing the several failures of their governments and the serious problems of high corruption, unemployment, poverty, lack of opportunities, insecurity, and the abandonment of promises.

Some aspects of these political campaigns that have received comment are the popularity of Lula and Chavez among the poorest class of the population and the growing disinterest of the middle class in voting, although in Brazil voting is obligatory and in Venezuela it is voluntary.

Alckmin and Rosales are optimists and they want to continue their campaigns to the end (October and December); therefore they are tireless workers, and they recall how in similarly difficult situations they gained votes due to the success of their educational, health, infrastructure, and social projects.

Alckmin and Rosales are both well-liked by businessman and bankers, because they place importance on the market economy and treat problems with transparency and with diplomacy. Their programs are very similar. The strategy of their campaigns are of resistance and not of force, as well as to add political power at a serious moment of public insecurity.

These two candidates have fought the mafia institutions that misappropriate public funds and traffic influence.

One of the most serious problems in the political campaign in Brazil and in Venezuela is that the poorest are easily swayed by populist and emotional speech. Both Lula and Chavez know how to manipulate speech to attract the popular masses by offering them "virtual" political power but few real solutions.

These politicians are perceived as typical Social Democrats; that is to say, they are tolerant and although also charismatic, they feel compelled to improve the social surroundings in a state of equality and justice.

Although both candidates desire to fight corruption, their political advisers know that that is not a subject that mobilizes the masses and excites them. For that reason they recommend focusing on the issue that always recur in the countries of Latin America; that is to say, strategies for solving poverty.

The short-term strategy is based on giving low-income families additions to the minimum wage, but granted without intermediaries so that they receive the income directly.

For example, the Venezuelan, Rosales, is offering in his campaign a debit card with the popular name "the Black Card" (the color of petroleum). This debit card would be given to around 2 million very low-income families.

The financial source for this first temporary solution would be one-fifth of the country's oil income.

This complementary welfare program would be combined with other social projects and an aggressive promotion of public and private investments with the medium-term objective to create jobs and new opportunities for small companies. But the more long-term project would be more integral and would consist of fiscal macroeconomic actions, monetary reform, and rational use of the government budget to obtain progress.

This strategy already has been implanted in Chile and in that country it has had many results, to such an extent that today the country exports more goods and services to the European Economic Community and to the United States and many countries of Latin America.

This integral strategy has still not been embraced by Alckmin, but it is the approach preferred by Rosales, and it is possible that this is the only difference that exists among them and between the Social Democratic parties that they represent.

EU and Americas agree closer ties
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: FORUM
A summit of European Union and Latin American leaders has ended in Vienna with an agreement by leaders from both continents to build closer ties.

Central American countries agreed to start trade talks with Brussels but the commitment from the rest of Latin America was more lukewarm.

European concerns over energy policy overshadowed the summit of 58 states.

Bolivia's nationalisation of its gas sector and a planned new Venezuelan tax on oil firms dominated the agenda.

The Europeans saw a divided Latin America where their investments would not be secure, BBC Americas editor Simon Watts reports.

Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, warned openly of the dangers of populism. President Vicente Fox of Mexico warned that the continent's progress was at risk.

And, our Americas editor notes, Brazil and Bolivia are barely on
speaking terms since Bolivian President Evo Morales accused the
Brazilian energy company of operating illegally in his country.

Stark divisions

In the summit's final statement, the EU and six Central American states: - Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and El Salvador - agreed to open negotiations on setting up a free-trade zone.

All states at the summit also agreed to "further promote and strengthen [their] bi-regional strategic partnership".

But with their gas and oil initiatives, Mr Morales and Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez undermined the negotiating power of Latin
America's majority, our Americas editor says.

Between them, the two leftist leaders have created enormous diplomatic tension, he adds.

They want Latin America to move away from seeking trade pacts with the rest of the world and towards internal economic alliances.

The rest of the region, including nominally leftist governments like
Brazil's, are still interested in trading with a large market like
Europe's and they want to encourage investors.

Market appeal

Mr Barroso called for Latin America to make its position clear.

"If we want to fully develop the potential of our partnership we also
need to know what is your strategic vision," he said at the opening of the summit.

The summit's host, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, stressed the need for open markets.

"Open market societies are better in their performance than closed,
restricted structures," he told reporters.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called on energy suppliers to act
"responsibly".

"I don't want to go into the details of what is happening in either
Venezuela or Bolivia but I mean all of us have a responsibility to the
world community to try to manage this sensibly," he said.

But Bolivia's president remained in combative mood, telling Brazilian TV that some foreign oil companies were no better than "smugglers".

"We said we need partners, not masters," he said.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said he had little confidence in any commitments made by Bolivia at the negotiating table.

"The Brazilian government will defend the interests of Brazilians in a
firm manner, without shying away from dialogue, but we do not expect that any agreements reached through that dialogue will actually be respected, or that they will not be undone by a statement the following day," he said

Mood:  irritated
Topic: FORUM


Humildemente pienso que este ensayo reciente del guru de la seguridad, Bruce Schneier, puede resultar de utilidad para alguno que desee comprender porque ahora ademas de cuidarnos de los "hackers", tenemos que protegernos de algunas compan?as fabricantes de software.

Who Owns Your Computer?

Bruce Schneier
This essay originally appeared on Wired.com. (2006-05-04)


When technology serves its owners, it is liberating. When it is designed to serve others, over the owner's objection, it is oppressive. There's a battle raging on your computer right now -- one that pits you against worms and viruses, Trojans, spyware, automatic update features and digital rights management technologies. It's the battle to determine who owns your computer.

You own your computer, of course. You bought it. You paid for it. But how much control do you really have over what happens on your machine? Technically you might have bought the hardware and software, but you have less control over what it's doing behind the scenes.

Using the hacker sense of the term, your computer is "owned" by other people.

It used to be that only malicious hackers were trying to own your
computers. Whether through worms, viruses, Trojans or other means, they would try to install some kind of remote-control program onto your system. Then they'd use your computers to sniff passwords, make fraudulent bank transactions, send spam, initiate phishing attacks and so on. Estimates are that somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of computers are members of remotely controlled "bot" networks. Owned.

Now, things are not so simple. There are all sorts of interests vying for control of your computer. There are media companies that want to control what you can do with the music and videos they sell you.

There are companies that use software as a conduit to collect marketing information, deliver advertising or do whatever it is their real owners require. And there are software companies that are trying to make money by pleasing not only their customers, but other companies they ally themselves with. All these companies want to own your computer.

Some examples:

* Entertainment software: In October 2005, it emerged that Sony had
distributed a rootkit with several music CDs -- the same kind of
software that crackers use to own people's computers. This rootkit
secretly installed itself when the music CD was played on a computer. Its purpose was to prevent people from doing things with the music that Sony didn't approve of: It was a DRM system. If the exact same piece of software had been installed secretly by a hacker, this would have been an illegal act. But Sony believed that it had legitimate reasons for wanting to own its customers' machines.


* Antivirus: You might have expected your antivirus software to
detect Sony's rootkit. After all, that's why you bought it. But
initially, the security programs sold by Symantec and others did
not detect it, because Sony had asked them not to. You might
have thought that the software you bought was working for you, but you would have been wrong.

* Internet services: Hotmail allows you to blacklist certain e-mail
addresses, so that mail from them automatically goes into your spam trap. Have you ever tried blocking all that incessant marketing
e-mail from Microsoft? You can't.

* Application software: Internet Explorer users might have expected
the program to incorporate easy-to-use cookie handling and pop- up blockers. After all, other browsers do, and users have found them
useful in defending against Internet annoyances. But Microsoft isn't
just selling software to you; it sells Internet advertising as well.
It isn't in the company's best interest to offer users features that
would adversely affect its business partners.

* Spyware: Spyware is nothing but someone else trying to own your
computer. These programs eavesdrop on your behavior and report back to their real owners -- sometimes without your knowledge or consent -- about your behavior.

* Internet security: It recently came out that the firewall in
Microsoft Vista will ship with half its protections turned off.
Microsoft claims that large enterprise users demanded this default
configuration, but that makes no sense. It's far more likely that
Microsoft just doesn't want adware -- and DRM spyware -blocked
by default.


* Update: Automatic update features are another way software
companies try to own your computer. While they can be useful for
improving security, they also require you to trust your software
vendor not to disable your computer for nonpayment, breach of
contract or other presumed infractions.

Adware, software-as-a-service and Google Desktop search are all examples of some other company trying to own your computer. And Trusted Computing will only make the problem worse.

There is an inherent insecurity to technologies that try to own people's computers: They allow individuals other than the computers' legitimate owners to enforce policy on those machines. These systems invite attackers to assume the role of the third party and turn a user's device against him.

Remember the Sony story: The most insecure feature in that DRM system was a cloaking mechanism that gave the rootkit control over whether you could see it executing or spot its files on your hard disk. By taking ownership away from you, it reduced your security.

If left to grow, these external control systems will fundamentally
change your relationship with your computer. They will make your
computer much less useful by letting corporations limit what you can do with it. They will make your computer much less reliable because you will no longer have control of what is running on your machine, what it does, and how the various software components interact. At the extreme, they will transform your computer into a glorified boob tube.

You can fight back against this trend by only using software that
respects your boundaries. Boycott companies that don't honestly serve their customers, that don't disclose their alliances, that treat
users like marketing assets. Use open-source software -- software
created and owned by users, with no hidden agendas, no secret
alliances and no back-room marketing deals.

Just because computers were a liberating force in the past doesn't
mean they will be in the future. There is enormous political and
economic power behind the idea that you shouldn't truly own your
computer or your software, despite having paid for it.