Tierra Redonda v. Tierra Plana

Son cientos de años de observación, experiencia y confirmación científica, la cual se caracteriza por ser objetiva y neutral, lo que nos ha demostrado que La Tierra es redonda, ovalada, esférica, que es parte de un sistema solar, que no es el centro de este y que es similar a otros planetas que también son esféricos a simple vista de telescopio. Ideas contrarias a estas realidades fueron refutadas a lo largo de la historia salvando a la humanidad del oscurantismo en la que estuvo sumida durante siglos (Edad Media). A pesar de ello, para los terraplanistas de hoy, los planetas y las estrellas son una enorme conspiración: Un inmenso domo con luces en el cielo “colocadas por alguien muy inteligente y con mucho poder”; o que argumentan contra la esfericidad de La Tierra indicando que lo mas lógico es que el trayecto de los vuelos comerciales deben ser lineas rectas y no oblicuas, o que un muro de hielo que rodea los bordes del planeta es la razón por la cual el agua de los mares nunca se cae por sus bordes, etc. Esto es realmente preocupante porque parece que estuviéramos regresando a la época oscura del pasado, aquella que denostaba cualquier explicación objetiva, lógica o racional sobre cualquier fenómeno en el mundo que nos rodea.

La mayoría de los seguidores de este tipo de teorías son personas con escasa formación educativa o que basan su posición en un sistema de creencias de corte divino, gente con perspectivas o enfoques amalgamados o muy dispares sobre un mismo fenómeno, a saber, conspiracionistas (al estilo de InfoWars), personas que creen que el hombre nunca llegó a la luna, los que creen en los “chemtrails” (que a la guisa es simple condensación de aire), ávidos lectores de la Biblia quienes fundamentan todo lo que existe solamente en esta, los que creen en los reptilianos, los que buscan anunakis, los Anti-Vacs, ufólogos, aquellos que creen que vivimos dentro de La Matrix (obviando el punto central de la película), los creyentes del proyecto HAARP, etc.

Asimismo, si bien existen profesionales con estudios superiores dentro de este tipo de grupos, es interesante notar que ellos no son expertos o cuentan con una especialización o post-grado en el campo de la geografía, física, geología, astronomía, aeronáutica, historia, ciencias espaciales u oceánicas; sino que son abogados, contadores, filósofos, economistas, y hasta instructores certificados de Yoga, coaches, healers, etc. es decir, con profesiones poco relacionadas con las carreras especializadas previamente mencionadas.

Es bueno tener en cuenta que para analizar y criticar un tema o fenómeno, es necesario revisar y estudiar previamente todo lo desarrollado por otros investigadores a lo largo de los años, sea a través de estudios universitarios o como autodidacto. Luego, con todo lo investigado y aprendido (conclusiones) se podrá opinar con base, autoridad y críticamente sobre cierto fenómeno. La falta de investigación seria y responsable es un peligro, la “investigación” basada solo en videos de Youtube, memes, voladas en redes sociales, rumores, “alternative facts” (Kellyanne Conway), conspiraciones, etc. crea un sector de la población peligrosamente susceptible a este tipo de ideas básicas, desinformadas y retrógradas.

Aun mas, el peligro de este tipo de posiciones es su acendrado anti-cientificismo, el cual puede ser utilizado como base política en futuros contextos electorales, incluso este tipo de movimientos ha hecho ganar una presidencia en el país mas poderoso del mundo. En efecto, reunir a un gran grupo de personas con creencias similares basadas mas en la fe que en lo evidente y probado, es un peligro real para la investigación científica. Gobiernos patrocinados y apoyados por este tipo de movimientos tienden a descalificar la ciencia en pos de validar la posición de la creación divina de todo lo que nos rodea, en buena cuenta, la posición de la religión. Y como sucede esto? Pues muy fácil: Restando o eliminando financiamiento publico a las principales agencias o entidades publicas encargadas del desarrollo científico en determinado país. Y por qué? Porque probando científicamente algo, se abre la puerta a la validación de otros fenómenos que son considerados un tema tabu o que por su complejidad son atribuidos a un origen divino (he ahi la ferrea oposicion al aborto, personas LGBTQ, clonacion humana, etc. aunque existen normas eticas aplicables a su desarrollo). Recordemos que el ser humano tiende a deificar todo aquello que no pude explicar o resolver. En fin.

Es por eso que muchos consideran hoy que la religión es el opio del pueblo, que cualquier cosa que contradijera lo indicado por la Biblia era herejía y pues no merecía ser escuchada sino castigada. Esto es lógico porque ideas de esta naturaleza sacuden la base de un sistema de creencias que tiene en sus lideres a personas que reclaman ser los intermediarios de Dios (el universo, lo infinito, lo incognoscible) en la tierra. Lo cierto para mi es que se trata de un peligro latente para un complejo sistema de Poder que ha sido efectivo a los largo de cientos de años. Se trata de una posición completamente valida en el debate sobre temas tabu o complejos, con su propia lógica, pero no necesariamente es la Verdad.

Sin embargo, el tema aquí es tratar de estar abiertos ante cualquier posición, incluso aquella que sea la mas ridícula para ti o hasta la que te catalogue de “borrego” por no ser tan “observador” y “despierto” como ellos. La manera de refutar tales posiciones es a través de mas investigación. La ciencia es importante, la ciencia es valiosa. Muchas cosas que gozamos hoy y que son parte del mundo moderno han sido posibles gracias a la ciencia y obviamente, como toda realidad, tendrá su lado bueno y su lado malo (o lo que en la religión podría compararse a la caridad, el amor, la ayuda al prójimo como aspectos positivos, pero también el extremismo, el integrismo, o la guerra como sus aspectos negativos). La apreciación de la realidad depende de nuestros filtros personales, a saber: La cultura, creencias, pasiones, educación, expectativas, sentimientos y, por supuesto, fe. Es a partir de ellas conjuntamente con un esfuerzo real por acercarnos a la verdad lo mas que sea posible lo que nos ayudara a desarrollar el entendimiento de los fenómenos que aun no podemos explicar. Personalmente, basar lo que no se puede explicar simplemente en la religión es puro conformismo, pero esa es mi opinión personal.

La próxima vez que converses con un terraplanista, ya sabes, solo refútalo con simple lógica, no te cierres tampoco, puede existir una mínima posibilidad de que lo que este diciendo pueda ser posible, házcelo saber también.

Video: National Geographic

Video: La gata de Schrödinger

Video: Hubert Heller

La obscena fortuna de los pastores evangélicos

Mientras mas educado seas difícilmente serás manipulado por estos líderes religiosos, gurus, pai, ni por nadie que piense que esta por encima de tu inteligencia o derechos. La educación es la verdadera llave hacia la libertad material y espiritual. La educación te da las herramientas para analizar, criticar y concluir sobre lo que otros te presenten como la verdad irrefutable.

En mi modesta opinión, los pastores evangélicos, las autoridades de la iglesia católica y cualquier otra autoridad religiosa debería vivir de acuerdo a como vivieron sus respectivos profetas y elegidos: En la pobreza material. Por ultimo, es muy interesante como este tipo de sectas y grupos religiosos son mas populares en distritos periféricos de Lima, pero difícilmente pueden instaurarse de la misma manera e intensidad en distritos de clase media-alta y alta (a pesar de que en estos, la fe es casi la misma aunque menos publica y descarada).

Video: Beto a Saber

Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento de la Ley N° 30490, Ley de la Persona Adulta Mayor

De acuerdo con el articulo 1 de las disposición generales del reglamento, su alcance es de carácter nacional y cumple un rol de articulación intergubernamental e intersectorial, cuyo objeto es desarrollar y precisar la aplicación de la Ley Nº 30490 – Ley de la Persona Adulta Mayor, en concordancia con:

a) La Constitución Política del Perú,
b) La Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos,
c) Tratados y convenciones internacionales suscritos por el Estado Peruano,
d) Así como con otras normas y políticas que garanticen el ejercicio pleno de los derechos de las personas adultas mayores.

La promoción y protección de los derechos de la persona adulta mayor están bajo la rectoría del Ministerio de la Mujer y Poblaciones Vulnerables (MIMP).

Acceso al Reglamento: REGLAMENTO DE LA LEY Nº 30490, LEY DE LA PERSONA ADULTA MAYOR – DECRETO SUPREMO Nº 007-2018-MIMP

Protesters riot in Madrid’s Lavapiés after immigrant street vendor death

Protesters clashed with security forces in the multicultural Madrid neighbourhood of Lavapiés on Thursday following the death of a Senegalese man whom they said was chased through the streets by police.

Riot police and firefighters were deployed to Lavapiés, a district in the centre of the Spanish capital with a large immigrant population, as angry protesters set fire to dustbins and a motorbike, and threw stones at security forces.

Demonstrators told AFP they were protesting in support of Mmame Mbage, a street vendor in his mid-thirties from Senegal, who arrived in Spain by boat 12 years ago.

Emergency services said Mbage was found unconscious on a street in Lavapiés by police on patrol.

“They were busy trying to revive him” when emergency workers arrived, a spokeswoman said. However he died of cardiac arrest.

She did not know what had happened to Mbage before he collapsed, but several other street vendors who were with him said he had been chased by police from Puerta del Sol.

“Municipal police arrived and chased him from Sol to Lavapiés with a motorbike,” said Modou, a 25-year-old vendor from Senegal who refused to give his surname.

“At the end he died here,” Modou told AFP, with others confirming the account.

Mbage worked as an illegal vendor and sent some money back to his family, one of thousands of migrants who have reached Spain over the years in search of a better life.

Spain is the third busiest gateway for migrants coming to Europe, with close to 23,000 arrivals in 2017. Hundreds have died along the way.

Information from: thelocal.es

Run, Hide, Fight – Campañas para enfrentar tiroteos en Universidades Estadounidenses

A estas alturas es ridículo pensar que en las universidades de países latinoamericanos ocurran este tipo de tragedias. Sin embargo en los Estados Unidos los simulacros y practicas para enfrentar situaciones en las que se dan tiroteos al azar son algo común. En el fondo de todo esto hay un serio problema con la Segunda Enmienda de la Constitución de los EE.UU. la cual, como derecho de las personas, permite que los Estadounidenses tengan el derecho a portar armas para su protección.

Un tema debatible desde que un sector de la población señala que esta enmienda es pétrea y no debería modificarse o interpretarse, mientras que otro indica que los tiempos cambian y se necesita una acción madura y acorde con la actual situacion de la sociedad para limitar este derecho dados los trágicos eventos que se cuentan desde el tiroteo en Columbine, la tragedia de la escuela primaria Sandy Hook,  pasando por la masacre de Las Vegas en 2017, hasta el ultimo tiroteo en Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida este ultimo mes de febrero de 2018.

En serio, para que un civil necesitaría un arma semi-automática que dispara decenas de balas en solo segundos? Cual es la necesidad? Para que convertir un rifle normal en uno automático? Tiene sentido? Pues no. Ahora se indica que quieren armar a los profesores en escuelas y universidades para enfrentar este problema. Sin embargo esa no es la solución en la sociedad aunque tal vez sea la solución para las manufactureras de armas y la Asociación Nacional del Rifle (NRA) que financia las campañas políticas especialmente  de los representantes y senadores Republicanos para que estos, una vez en el poder, promuevan leyes que beneficien a este sector de la producción.  Armar a todo el mundo solo va a beneficiarlos a ellos, y eso es terrible.

Por otro lado, los Republicanos siempre que suceden estas desgracias tienden a ofrecer “prayers” u oraciones para las victimas: “My condolences and prayers for the victims and their families”. Siempre lo mismo. Nunca dicen: “My condolences to the victim’s families. This time I’ll make sure to take a quick action in both chambers of the Congress in order to strike this problem”. Jamas dirian eso! Lo que deberían hacer en lugar de ello es tomar acción de una buena vez para debatir el tema del control de armas en el pais de forma madura, reflexiva y autocritica.

Profesores, símbolo de autoridad en las escuelas, ahora estarán armados al mismo estilo de una cárcel. Si, las escuelas ahora parecerán cárceles. El Director sera el Alcaide, los profesores serán guardias de seguridad y los estudiantes asemejaran a reos o convictos. No es eso aterrador?

Republicanos, en una interpretación básica de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos, culpan al tirador; mientras que los Demócratas culpan a las políticas permisivas y laxas que permiten a cualquier persona adquirir un arma como si fuera a comprar una gaseosa o el pan de la mañana. Lo cierto es que tanta discusión va a caer en saco roto, se van a olvidar y hasta que ocurra otro nuevo incidente, el tema volverá a discutirse sin ningún viso de solución mas aun en pleno gobierno Republicano.

Estados Unidos anuncia su salida de la Unesco

Image: http://www.dw.com/image/16103251_303.jpg

Estados Unidos anunció su retiro de la Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (Unesco, por sus siglas en inglés).

La medida, que fue comunicada este jueves a la directora general de la organización, Irinia Bukova, se hará efectiva a partir del 31 de diciembre.

Según el Departamento de Estado estadounidense, la intención de EE.UU. es establecerse como “observador permanente” de Unesco.

Mayor información en: bbc

Read more at: reuters

Department of Homeland Security planning to collect social media info on all immigrants

The Department of Homeland Security has moved to collect social media information on all immigrants, including permanent residents and naturalized citizens.

new rule published in the Federal Register last week calls to include “social media handles and aliases, associated identifiable information and search results” in the department’s immigrant files.

BuzzFeed News first reported the new rule on Monday. It is set to go into effect on Oct. 18 after a public comment period.

According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Read more at: thehill

Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to the Obama-era program that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation, calling it an “amnesty-first approach” and urging Congress to pass a replacement before he begins phasing out its protections in six months.

As early as March, officials said, some of the 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children who qualify for the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, will become eligible for deportation. The five-year-old policy allows them to remain without fear of immediate removal from the country and gives them the right to work legally.

Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who announced the change at the Justice Department, both used the aggrieved language of anti-immigrant activists, arguing that those in the country illegally are lawbreakers who hurt native-born Americans by usurping their jobs and pushing down wages.

Mr. Trump said in a statement that he was driven by a concern for “the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” Mr. Sessions said the program had “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs.”

Protests broke out in front of the White House and the Justice Department and in cities across the country soon after Mr. Sessions’s announcement. Democrats and some Republicans, business executives, college presidents and immigration activists condemned the move as a coldhearted and shortsighted effort that was unfair to the young immigrants and could harm the economy.

“This is a sad day for our country,” Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, wrote on his personal page. “It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it.”

Former President Barack Obama, who had warned that any threat to the program would prompt him to speak out, called his successor’s decision “wrong,” “self-defeating” and “cruel.”

“Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us,” Mr. Obama wrote on Facebook.

Both he and Mr. Trump said the onus was now on lawmakers to protect the young immigrants as part of a broader overhaul of the immigration system that would also toughen enforcement.

But despite broad and longstanding bipartisan support for measures to legalize unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children, the odds of a sweeping immigration deal in a deeply divided Congress appeared long. Legislation to protect the “dreamers” has also repeatedly died in Congress.

Just hours after the angry reaction to Mr. Trump’s decision, the president appeared to have second thoughts. In a late-evening tweet, Mr. Trump specifically called on Congress to “legalize DACA,” something his administration’s officials had declined to do earlier in the day.

Mr. Trump also warned lawmakers that if they do not legislate a program similar to the one Mr. Obama created through executive authority, he will “revisit this issue!” — a statement sure to inject more uncertainty into the ultimate fate of the young, undocumented immigrants who have been benefiting from the program since 2012.

Conservatives praised Mr. Trump’s move, though some expressed frustration that he had taken so long to rescind the program and that the gradual phaseout could mean that some immigrants retained protection from deportation until October 2019.

The White House portrayed the decision as a matter of legal necessity, given that nine Republican state attorneys general had threatened to sue to halt the program immediately if Mr. Trump did not act.

Months of internal White House debate preceded the move, as did the president’s public display of his own conflicted feelings. He once referred to DACA recipients as “incredible kids.”

The president’s wavering was reflected in a day of conflicting messages from him and his team. Hours after his statement was released, Mr. Trump told reporters that he had “great love” for the beneficiaries of the program he had just ended.

“I have a love for these people, and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly,” he said. But he notably did not endorse bipartisan legislation to codify the program’s protections, leaving it unclear whether he would back such a solution.

Mr. Trump’s aides were negotiating late into Monday evening with one another about precisely how the plan to wind down the program would be executed. Until Tuesday morning, some aides believed the president had settled on a plan that would be more generous, giving more of the program’s recipients the option to renew their protections.

But even taking into account Mr. Trump’s contradictory language, the rollout of his decision was smoother than his early moves to crack down on immigration, particularly the botched execution in January of his ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

In addition to the public statement from Mr. Sessions and a White House question-and-answer session, the president was ready on Tuesday with the lengthy written statement, and officials at the Justice and Homeland Security Departments provided detailed briefings and distributed information to reporters in advance.

Mr. Trump sought to portray his move as a compassionate effort to head off the expected legal challenge that White House officials said would have forced an immediate and highly disruptive end to the program. But he also denounced the policy, saying it helped spark a “massive surge” of immigrants from Central America, some of whom went on to become members of violent gangs like MS-13. Some immigration critics contend that programs like DACA, started under Mr. Obama, encouraged Central Americans to enter the United States, hoping to stay permanently. Tens of thousands of migrants surged across America’s southern border in the summer of 2014, many of them children fleeing dangerous gangs.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, indicated that Mr. Trump would support legislation to “fix” the DACA program, as long as Congress passed it as part of a broader immigration overhaul to strengthen the border, protect American jobs and enhance enforcement.

“The president wants to see responsible immigration reform, and he wants that to be part of it,” Ms. Sanders said, referring to a permanent solution for the young immigrants. “Something needs to be done. It’s Congress’s job to do that. And we want to be part of that process.”

Later on Tuesday, Marc Short, Mr. Trump’s top legislative official, told reporters on Capitol Hill that the White House would release principles for such a plan in the coming days, input that at least one key member of Congress indicated would be crucial.

“It is important that the White House clearly outline what kind of legislation the president is willing to sign,” Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said in a statement. “We have no time to waste on ideas that do not have the votes to pass or that the president won’t sign.”

The announcement was an effort by Mr. Trump to honor the law-and-order message of his campaign, which included a repeated pledge to end Mr. Obama’s immigration policy, while seeking to avoid the emotionally charged and politically perilous consequences of targeting a sympathetic group of immigrants.

Mr. Trump’s decision came less than two weeks after he pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who drew intense criticism for his aggressive pursuit of unauthorized immigrants, which earned him a criminal contempt conviction.

The blame-averse president told a confidante over the past few days that he realized that he had gotten himself into a politically untenable position. As late as one hour before the decision was to be announced, administration officials privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump might not fully grasp the details of the steps he was about to take, and when he discovered their full impact, would change his mind, according to a person familiar with their thinking who was not authorized to comment on it and spoke on condition of anonymity.

But ultimately, the president followed through on his campaign pledge at the urging of Mr. Sessions and other hard-line members inside his White House, including Stephen Miller, his top domestic policy adviser.

The announcement started the clock on revoking legal status from those protected under the program.

Officials said DACA recipients whose legal status expires on or before March 5 would be able to renew their two-year period of legal status as long as they apply by Oct. 5. But the announcement means that if Congress fails to act, immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children could face deportation as early as March 6 to countries where many left at such young ages that they have no memory of them.

Immigration officials said they did not intend to actively target the young immigrants as priorities for deportation, though without the program’s protection, they would be considered subject to removal from the United States and would no longer be able to work legally.

Officials said some of the young immigrants could be prevented from returning to the United States if they traveled abroad.

Immigration advocates took little comfort from the administration’s assurances, describing the president’s decision as deeply disturbing and vowing to shift their demands for protections to Capitol Hill.

Marielena Hincapié, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, called Mr. Trump’s decision “nothing short of hypocrisy, cruelty and cowardice.” Maria Praeli, a recipient of protection under the program, criticized Mr. Sessions and Mr. Trump for talking “about us as if we don’t matter and as if this isn’t our home.”

The Mexican foreign ministry issued a statement saying the “Mexican government deeply regrets” Mr. Trump’s decision.

As recently as July, Mr. Trump expressed skepticism about the prospect of a broad legislative deal.

“What I’d like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan,” he told reporters. “But our country and political forces are not ready yet.”

As for DACA, he said: “There are two sides of a story. It’s always tough.”

In: nytimes

1 2