Por Santiago Niño Becerra (Barcelona)
Publicado el 10.02.2011 en http://www.lacartadelabolsa.com/

(…)

Los nuevos stress tests a las entidades financieras (españolas) están confirmando lo que se cuchicheaba por los pasillos: que bastantes créditos hipotecarios -¿sólo?- fueron concedidos por unos importes que la prudencia no justificaba, pero daba lo mismo porque el incremento continuado de los precios de la vivienda lo justificaba: fue la filosofía de las USA subprime, de las spanish subprime. Estoy convencido de que la cosa no fue así.

Si algo caracteriza al sistema financiero es el hecho de que extraordinariamente buenos profesionales trabajan en él y, además, si algún subsector económico cuenta con medios técnicos suficientes es el financiero; es decir, ni ignorancia, ni desidia, ni ineptitud. Entonces, ¿qué?.

Escenifico una secuencia. Pienso que en algún momento del año 91 o del 92 las principales entidades financieras del mundo desarrollado recibieron una consigna procedente de las más altas instancias económicas, una consigna muy simple: no tenían que poner ningún palo a ninguna rueda del crecimiento económico, más aún, debían lubricar los engranajes y resortes de la economía a fin de favorecer el crecimiento porque no otras opciones para crecer quedaban ya; esa consigna se multiplicó por un coeficiente elevadísimo a partir del año 2000.

Las entidades financieras dieron por supuesto / entendieron / quisieron interpretar / necesitaron creer, que si algún problema sucedía serían ayudadas, socorridas, sostenidas por y desde esas elevadas instancias: al fin y al cabo estaban favoreciendo el crecimiento. Y, bueno, el board de cada entidad financiera estaba compuesto por humanos, y más créditos significaban más comisiones y más negocio, directo y paralelo, lo que daba lugar a más beneficios, lo que implicaba bonus más elevados a final de año.

¿Lo de que el precio de los inmuebles iba a continuar subiendo indefinidamente?; bueno, a través de algún artificio había que explicar esa sistemática de más-más-más, ¿no?. Lo he dicho ya en numerosas ocasiones: que no se culpabilice a las entidades financieras, si se quiere buscar culpables hay que ir más arriba: a la filosofía en que se estuvo basando este modelo ya agotado: aún nuestro modelo: del que todos formamos parte. Luego, en última instancia, ¿quién tiene la culpa de lo sucedido?

Y no: no me paga ningún ‘banco’ para decir esto que digo.

(…) Leer más »

Es detestable esa avaricia espiritual que tienen los que sabiendo algo,
no procuran la transmisión de esos conocimientos.

Unamuno, Miguel
Filósofo español. Leer más »

By Ada Rueda

Spoiling Our Children
When you spoil your children with material goods, where is that motivation coming from, your own inner child?

One of the greatest things about children is that they have the ability to entertain themselves for long periods of time with something as simple as a cardboard box, a container, or a set of measuring spoons. It makes you wonder why we feel the need to buy them so many toys that they won’t even have time to play with them all before they grow out of them. Often, if we take the time to question our compulsion to constantly give our children new toys and clothes, and to spoil them with food that is not even good for them, we will find that we are trying to fill up the space to avoid our own difficult feelings and pain. If you feel yourself wanting to spoil your child with material possessions, take a moment and see if you can feel where your motivation is coming from.

We may be inundating our children with things they don’t need out of our own desire to create a feeling of abundance that was lacking in our own childhood, or out of a need to feel liked by our children. Both of these motives tend to be unconscious, stemming from unresolved issues from our own upbringing or even our adult life. These unresolved feelings naturally come up when we find ourselves in the role of a parent, often as our child reaches the age we were when these traumas were most pronounced. Spoiling your children will not save you or make your pain disappear, only acknowledging and working on your emotional issues can do that. What our children really need us to provide for them is both a sense of safety and a sense of freedom and love of which there can never be too much. If we are able to do this well, material possessions need not take center stage.

We all want to provide our children with a good and happy life, but most of us know deep down that material possessions play a very small role. We confuse our children when we seek to make them happy through buying them things. When we do this, they take our cue that happiness comes in the form of toys and treats, rather than in the joy of being alive, surrounded by love, and free to explore the world.
Leer más »

La televisión ha acabado con el cine, el teatro, las tertulias y la lectura. Ahora tantos canales terminan con la unidad familiar.

Antonio Mingote

Leer más »

Imagínese que un pelo humano es aproximadamente 1200 veces más grueso que una fibra de asbesto. Dado el tamaño y forma, las fibras se pueden encontrar suspendidas en el aire por mucho tiempo, estas pueden penetrar e incorporarse en su cuerpo después de ser respiradas o tragadas.

Si su hogar tiene asbestos, su salud podría estar en riesgo, dependiendo del estado o condición en que está el asbesto en su hogar. Si usted lo puede moler con la presión de su mano o si la superficie no está cubierta (con pintura látex o un sellante que logra encapsular el asbesto), el material se considera desmenuzable, permitiendo la liberación de fibras de asbesto al aire, esto puede representar un riesgo para su salud.

La mejor opción es pintar el asbesto existente en su casa. No se recomienda sacar asbesto de su casa; esto dispersa el polvo aumentando el riesgo para su salud. No remueva, toque, aserruche, muela, use la aspiradora, ralle o pula materiales que contienen asbesto. Al hacer esto, está creando un riesgo para su salud. Infórmese bien y haga una mantención regular en su hogar. Cubra todo tipo de material que contiene asbestos con pintura látex que no contenga plomo o un sellante que mantenga las fibras fijas. Si el material está en un estado altamente desmenuzable, contácte al fabricante del material y al Ministerio de Salud, y pregunte por recomendaciones de profesionales que pueden remover responsablemente el material sin exponerlo a usted, a su familia a los mismos trabajadores que puedan retirar el material de su hogar. Leer más »

DR: If we can’t explain this major epidemic of cancer on the basis of smoking, increased longevity, genetics, or a fatty diet, what are the reasons for it ?

SE: They fall into three general categories. The first relates to consumer products. By consumer products, I mean things you can buy in a store which include food, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products. In all of these areas, the consumer, once given the information on which of these pose cancer risks, could boycott them and shop for safer products.

Animal and dairy products are highly contaminated with a wide range of pesticides and other industrial, chemical carcinogens. Take meat for instance. Apart from the pesticides and industrial carcinogens, you have the sex hormones. Cattle in feedlots, 100 days to slaughter, are implanted with sex hormones, from which high residues are left in the meat that you eat. These are very important risk factors for reproductive cancers-testicular cancers in men, breast cancers in women- and leukemia in children.

Children love hot dogs. Hot dogs are dyed pink and red with nitrite and the nitrite reacts with certain amines-chemicals naturally present in food-to produce highly potent carcinogens known as nitrosamines. We have the chemical data showing that nitrosamines are found in nitrite-dyed hot dogs. We also have what’s called epidemiological studies showing that children who eat nitrite in their dyed hot dogs-which are the standard hot dog-have up to about a three- to four-fold increased incidence of brain cancer and about a six- to seven-fold increased incidence of leukemia.

Apart from that, most of the milk in this country is contaminated. It comes from cows that have been injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone to increase their production of milk and this hormone increases levels of a natural growth factor, known as IGF1. The milk becomes supercharged by this growth factor, which in high levels has been clearly associated with breast, prostate, and colon cancer.

Aside from food, cosmetics and toiletries are a witches’ brew of undisclosed carcinogens. When you look at the label on the back of a bottle of shampoo, you see about 20 chemicals listed. This means nothing to anybody because there’s no indication as to which of these chemicals are carcinogens.

These chemicals fall into three categories. There are ingredients that are carcinogenic themselves like talcum powder. For example, women, particularly pre-menopausal women that dust their genital areas with talcum powder after showering and bathing, have up to a three- to four-fold increased incidence in ovarian cancer. There are also other ingredients that themselves are not carcinogenic, but which break down to release carcinogens like formaldehyde. Lastly, you have ingredients, which interact with each other to form carcinogens. Are woman informed? Not at all.

One other area of consumer products, besides foods, cosmetics, and toiletries, is household products. For instance, there’s a deodorizer a lot of people use in their toilets, bathrooms, and elsewhere called Para. Para is composed of dichlorobenzene, which is a highly volatile, highly potent carcinogen. But there’s no warning whatsoever about this.

Pesticides in the home, lawn, or garden are very risky indeed. If you use pesticides in and around the home, your dog will have a five-fold increased risk of getting a not uncommon cancer in dogs called canine lymphoma. More importantly, there are major excesses of childhood cancers where pesticides are used in and around the home, lawn, or garden, and where pet collars containing carcinogenic chemicals are used.

So these are the three areas of consumer products for which the consumer, given a choice, could reduce his or her risk, but they are denied this information by the cancer establishment-a fundamental violation of the democratic right to know. So that’s the first category in which the public could easily reduce their risk of cancer.

The second is medical drugs given to you by your doctor. There is the requirement for informed consent. When your doctor gives you a drug, you are entitled to be given the basic information as to the dangers of these drugs. But in general, you’re not. The drug companies do not provide doctors this information or the information is trivialized. They’re not provided this information by the cancer establishment.

Ritalin, for instance, is a drug widely used for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) in children. We use about 10 times more per capita in the U.S. than any other country in the world. If a child misbehaves in school, the parent is told that the child has ADD and the doctor prescribes Ritalin, which is a highly dangerous carcinogenic drug, which also has been shown to induce very aggressive liver cancers in rodents.

Then you’ve got Evista or Raloxifene, which is the trade name. It is widely prescribed by Ely Lily for osteoporosis-millions of women the world over get it. There’s clear-cut data, which Ely Lily has admitted in its own internal confidential information, that Evista induces ovarian cancer.

When estrogen-based drugs are used for estrogen replacement therapy, particularly the estrogen drug alone without the testosterone, you get risks of uterine cancer in 1 in every 100 women after 10 years. This is a very high risk. It’s much greater than the 1 in 250 annual incidence of lung cancer in heavy smokers.

Let’s move on to the third category-domestic, chemical terrorism. The petrochemicals and other industries have contaminated our environment-air, water, workplaces, and foodstuffs-with a wide range of petrochemical and other carcinogens. They have done this knowing full well that these chemicals are carcinogenic. This relates not only to the petrochemical industries, but also to the mining and other industries, particularly in medical radiation. Why are we being subjected to these risks? It is for the profit of corporations that could relatively easily, by what’s called “toxic use reduction,” phase out the use of chemical carcinogens and substitute them with much safer chemicals.

I really haven’t dealt sufficiently with labor, but occupational exposures to carcinogens are the single most important cause of cancer in the country not only for men, but also for women. We know that probably one million women are exposed in the workplace to chemicals that induce breast cancer, that also, as I mentioned earlier, lead to cancers in children.

www.preventcancer.com

Leer más »

A propósito del día mundial del cáncer, va un artículo impactante (en inglés) según el cual, el incremento del cáncer se debe a carninógenos industriales que están en nuestros alimentos, cosméticos, deodorizadores, medicinas, abuso de mamografías, etc. Cuidado, con el cáncer no se juega!.

Cancer: It’s a Growth Industry

David Ross interviews Dr. Samuel Epstein, Z magazine, October 2003

Dr. Samuel Epstein is emeritus professor of environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and chair of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has published some 260 peer reviewed articles, and authored or co-authored 10 books including the prize-winning The Politics of Cancer, The Safe Shopper’s Bible, The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, and The Politics of Cancer, Revisited. Epstein has worked internationally and domestically providing testimony, consulting, and drafting legislation. For decades he has doggedly exposed the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society for losing the winnable war on cancer.

DAVID ROSS (DR): What is the impact of cancer on society and what are the stated causes of cancer?

SAMUEL EPSTEIN (SE): Over recent decades, the incidence of cancer has escalated to epidemic proportions, now striking nearly one in every two men, and over one in every three women in their lifetimes. Even more disturbing is the recent recognition that this very high incidence of cancer is going to increase further still and, by the year 2050, it will be doubling the current very high incidence rate.

If you look at a cancer called non-Hodgkin’s Iymphoma (the cancer from which Jackie Kennedy died), over the last few decades, the incidence has gone up by nearly 100 percent. When you look at brain cancer, the incidence has gone up about 80 or 90 percent. When you look at breast cancer, it’s gone up about 60 or 65 percent. When you look at testicular cancer, particularly in men between the ages of 28-35, it’s gone up, believe it or not, nearly 300 percent. When you look at childhood cancers, depending on the particular cancer, the incidence has gone up as high as 40-50 percent. These are all non-smoking cancers.

The public is under the general impression that the real increase in cancer rates is due to smoking. There’s no question that smoking is the single most important cause of all cancer, however, when you look at the data, lung cancer and other smoking-related cancers account for between one-third and one-quarter of the increased incidence of all cancers. Incidentally, the incidence of lung cancer in men is being sharply reduced because men are giving up smoking, while in women it is increasing.

Is it because people are living longer that they’re getting more cancers? The answer to that is no, because when we talk about cancer incidence rates, we adjust them to reflect the increasing longevity of the population.

Can genetics be the possible reason for this major increase in cancer? Not at all. There’s no chance whatsoever that the genetics of human populations has changed in the last 40-50 years. It takes tens of thousands of years for genetic effects in the general population to change. So one can exclude genetics and sharply limit the role of smoking.

What about fatty diet? There’s really little evidence that fat is a risk factor for cancer. For instance, if you look at Mediterranean countries, they have extremely high fat consumption, particularly olive oil, which can be as high as 40 percent of the diet. But the rates of cancers, particularly reproductive cancers, are low. However, you find strong relationships between the consumption of animal and dairy fats and some cancers. But that’s a reflection of the fact that these are highly contaminated with a wide range of industrial, chemical, and petrochemical carcinogens.

There has been a massive escalation in the incidence of cancer that cannot be explained away on the basis of smoking, longevity, genetics, or a fatty diet.

The National Cancer Institute -NCI (a governmental or federal institution, which taxpayers pay for) and the American Cancer Society -ACS (the world’s largest non-profit, a so-called “charity”), the american cancer establishment, try to explain away cancer by what’s called, “blame the victim.” If you get cancer, it’s your fault. You smoke too much. It’s a fatty diet.” Or they claim it’s because people are spending too much time in the sun. There’s no question that malignant melanoma and skin cancer will result from spending too much time in the sun, but that has nothing to do with any of the other major cancers that I mentioned-brain cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, breast, testicular, and childhood cancers. They parallel this emphasis on blame the victim by ignoring, to all intents and purposes, a vast body of scientific information on avoidable causes or risk factors of cancer.

What, then, are their policies? First of all, they confuse the public by using the words “secondary prevention.” By that they mean screening, diagnosis, and the use of chemicals, vitamins, etc. to help reduce cancer risks due to past exposures to carcinogens. So when they talk about how much money they spend on prevention, not only is there gross exaggeration, but they also, by using the word secondary prevention, mislead the public. The cancer establishment is fixated on what I call, “damage control”-the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer, as opposed to prevention.

For example, occupation is a major cause of cancer in men and, to a lesser extent, breast cancer in women. In children, too, because children whose parents work in plants during the pregnancy of the wife, have major excesses of childhood cancer. Their parents also carry occupational carcinogens into the home and they are exposed to carcinogens themselves, which are absorbed into their bloodstream.

Of the NCI’s $4.5 billion dollar yearly budget, the amount of money the NCI spends on in-house research on occupational cancer is $15 million dollars, which is less than one percent. Of the ACS’s budget on cancer prevention, the money spent on occupational, environmental, and other preventable causes of cancer is less than 0.1 percent.

Many of us have charged the cancer establishment with major responsibility for losing the winnable war against cancer. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the leading American charity watchdog stated, “The American Cancer Society is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives.”

DR: What are the conflicts of interest between NCI, the American Cancer Society, and industry?

SE: The conflicts of interest extend particularly to the mammography industry-the machine and film industry. We have excellent data showing that pre-menopausal mammography is not only ineffective, but is also dangerous for a variety of reasons, including the high doses of radiation. Two films of a breast in a pre-menopausal woman gives that woman about 500 times the dose of a chest X-ray. If a pre-menopausal woman gets a mammography every year over a ten-year period, the dosages of radiation can well amount to about ten rads-a rad is a “radiation absorbed dose,” a measure of radiation exposure. Radiation from routine pre-menopausal mammography reaches reasonably close to the kind of dosage that women got in Hiroshima and Nagasaki outside of the major epicenter where the atom bomb was exploded. Nevertheless, a radiologist will tell women, when asked if there’s any problem with the radiation, “Well my dear,” and they’ll call them by their first name, “not at all. It’s just the same as spending a few days in Denver or taking a transatlantic flight.” This is deception and manipulation.

The conflicts of interest are not only with the mammography industry. The relationships between NCI, ACS, and the cancer drug industry are a matter of record. In fact, the previous director of the National Cancer Institute said we must recognize that the NCI has become a “governmental pharmaceutical industry. “

As taxpayers we pay for a great deal of research on drugs for cancer treatment. What happens when the research and development is done? When a drug starts looking hopeful, that drug and all its backup research is then passed on to industry that charges massively high prices to consumers. For instance, citizens paid for the research and development of Taxol and then it’s passed over to Bristol Meyers Squibb who can charge up to 30-50 times more for the same drug. So the taxpayer pays twice.
Leer más »

Martes 1.2.2010.

Centenares de miles de manifestantes colmaron hoy las plazas del centro de El Cairo y Alejandría en las marchas “del millón”, convocadas en el octavo día de una revuelta popular que reclama la renuncia del presidente egipcio Hosni Mubarak quien está 30 años en el poder y que ahora pretende entregarle el poder a su hijo Gamal sin convocar a elecciones democráticas. Según datos oficiales de la ONU, hasta ahora hay 300 muertos.

Mubarak es -junto con Jordania- un aliado estratégico de Washington e Israel en la región. Su gobierno administra el Canal de Suez, esencial para el aprovisionamiento petrolero desde Medio Oriente hacia el Mar Mediterráneo.

Leer más »

¿Qué le parece que Keiko Fujimori financie su campaña con fondos de rifas y polladas?
Es digna hija de su padre. Cuando en ‘Liberación’ sacamos las cuentas de Vladimiro Montesinos en el Banco Wiese -que llegaban a 2 millones 700 mil dólares-, Alberto Fujimori dijo que esas cuentas eran producto de la asesoría que hacía su ex asesor, después de haber dicho que trabajaba 14 horas para la seguridad nacional. De tal palo tal astilla.

Y ahora se viene Kenji para el Congreso.
No quiero ser cruel con alguien que merece una suerte de compasión clínica.

¿Y qué le parece el regreso de Martha Chávez, Luz Salgado y Carmen Lozada?
Eso es parte del elenco que se viene, aunque faltan otras personas. Falta Hermoza Ríos. Hay que liberarlo porque qué hace Lozada sin él, sin José Villanueva Ruesta, sin todos los prófugos. Si el Perú elige a Keiko, habrá demostrado el profundo grado de su enfermedad. Solo un país profundamente enfermo, socialmente tarado, podría hacer eso: premiar a la persona que va a amnistiar a uno de los tipos que más destruyó al país como institución. No pienso huir si ella asume la Presidencia, pero me costaría mucho explicarle a un niño, a un adolescente interesado en la política, por qué el Perú es así.

¿Y qué siente que su hermana vuelva a postular al Congreso por el fujimorismo?
Es su opción, aunque lo lamento. Ella es un lujo para el fujimorismo. Es el cromo de un Jaguar en un Tico. Qué hace ahí una persona que estudió lingüística, filología comparada, la que más ha hecho por rescatar los peruanismos. Qué hace ahí con un líder que no habla el castellano correctamente y con gente que ha demostrado que la cultura no es una de sus características. No lo sé. Quiero creer que son los gestos surrealistas de algunas personas.

Luis Castañeda fue excluido del proceso judicial del Caso Comunicore. ¿Qué señal es esa?
Lo veo como una contradicción profunda, porque si sus subordinados hicieron todo lo que hicieron, cómo es eso de que el jefe (de esa operación) no está (en el proceso). Esto demuestra que es una decisión política y no judicial para no interrumpir la campaña. Creo que esa decisión es revisable y en el futuro va a tener que corregirse. Pero no tengo duda de que Castañeda tiene cosas qué explicar en relación a Comunicore.

¿Qué le parece esa suerte de enemistad entre Pedro Pablo Kuczynski y Toledo? PPK le ha lanzado puyazos al ex presidente y lo acusa de promover las tachas en su contra.
PPK es cuatro por ciento inglés. Es nadie. Se cree mucho, pero es four percent. Lo que quiere es titulares, llamar la atención. Ahora dice mierda. Qué curioso, está repitiendo aquello que muchos decían de él. Se ha puesto criollo, está desesperado. Pero su problema es que él es la Kola Real y su jefe, Alejandro Toledo, es la Coca Cola. Ahora es una Coca Cola que a mí no me gustaría tomar. Toledo tiene también muchos defectos.

¿Cuáles son esos defectos?
Su derechismo sin matices. Está completamente convencido de que el mundo funciona porque el mercado se regula solo y eso es mentira. Tampoco me gustan algunas de sus actitudes personales. Creo que podría mejorar mucho. No me gusta que no recuerde que el Perú no es el mundo empresarial. Quisiera un Toledo más de centro que de derecha. Hasta ahora no veo a un candidato de centro. Todos quieren ocupar la casa (Palacio de Gobierno) sin aplicar reformas. El Perú necesita reformas. Que la derecha entienda que hay gente que no está con ella y gente pobre que no tiene posibilidad de expresarse. La gran candidatura de centro no existe. Humala no lo es.

¿Y qué es Humala?
Él se arrima a lugares comunes del nacionalismo que no son un programa. Humala no tiene un programa coherente. Por eso no convence mucho y está perdiendo audiencia. El país necesita un centro pensante, poderoso e imaginativo, por los retos que se vienen.

Manuel Rodríguez Cuadros dice que él es la opción de centro.
Será la opción del Centro de Lima. Él es la opción de Judas. Después de saber lo que hizo, no tengo muchos comentarios que hacer.

Dice que va a llegar al 38 por ciento en las encuestas.
Él puede decir lo que le da la gana. No se salta del 0.6 por ciento al 38 por ciento con el carisma que él tiene. Necesitaría varias turbinas Rolls Royce para eso, y lo que veo es un motorcito eléctrico.

¿Qué nos espera en estos meses de campaña?
Fatalmente veo un montón de basura y pocas ideas. La gente no exige ideas. No hay una demanda ciudadana porque haya un debate sobre programas. A la gente como que no le importa. El Perú está en una fase de narcisismo cretino. Que somos los primeros en gastronomía, que somos un gran destino turístico, que somos un país extraordinario, que somos todas las sangres juntas. ¿Qué les pasa?, ¿no ven las cosas? El Perú se cree mucho y como país es poco. De dónde nace está autocomplacencia peruana de hoy que me parece tan ridícula. Cuidado, así estábamos el siglo pasado y perdimos la guerra.
Leer más »

Por Luis Endo (Diario 16)

¿Cómo ve actualmente a la televisión peruana?

La televisión ha renunciado a hacer periodismo de investigación incómodo. La época en que revelaba cosas auténticamente punzantes para el Presidente y el poder económico, se acabó. Los ‘petroaudios’, claro, concernían a un ex ministro, a un ex abogado sinvergüenza y a un par de funcionarios, pero estos años al Presidente (Alan García) no lo ha tocado nadie. A su entorno tampoco. Nadie ha hablado de (Enrique) Cornejo, de (Luis) Nava.

¿Y por qué la televisión ha renunciado a hacer periodismo?

Porque está en el Poder. Y los poderes económico y político han hecho de la televisión un instrumento que hace eco de sus filosofías y argumentos. En la televisión no se puede hacer periodismo de verdad porque está demasiado controlada y secuestrada por los poderes fácticos y políticos. Ni en la radio se puede hacer mucho. Ha sufrido un proceso increíble de deterioro. Hay un proceso de ‘imbecilización’ de la sociedad, haciéndole creer que los calzones de la vedette, los besos clandestinos del actorcito y las sacadas de vuelta de la aprendiz de puta es el menú informativo.

Y en donde los primeros quince minutos de los noticieros tiene que haber una buena dosis de sangre…

El sustituto de la verdad es la hemorragia. La televisión da un menú idiota y la gente cree que se entera de lo que está pasando cuando no se entera de nada. El mundo no existe en los noticieros. El mundo es una inundación en Australia, otra en Brasil y un loco que mata a seis en Arizona. Convierten al mundo en una página policial. Los peruanos están desnutridos, informativamente hablando. Es un proyecto mundial que consiste en que la gente sepa menos y mientras menos sepa, menos ciudadano va a ser, y mientras menos ciudadano, menos reclamos. Por eso Wikileaks tiene loco al sistema mundial.
Leer más »