Democratic Initiatives (by Néstor Cevasco)

Whenever there is an important national soccer match broadcasted on TV, some people are stupefied in front of their TV screens waiting for their favourite teams. But in spite of the fact that these people pay regularly for their cable service, some of them cannot enjoy this TV spectacle whatsoever. On the contrary, they are only permitted to watch mere images of stadium seats crowded with the faces of fanatics or spectators, instead of the match. The reason for this seems to be that these viewers, so to speak clients of a cable service as well, do not wish to pay for an extra charge to watch these especial soccer matches, so they are not allowed to watch them. At least, there is some benevolent person working on the other side of the TV screen offering them the possibility of watching either the benches of the stadium, or the faces of fanatics, but not the match…

This situation leads some people to ask themselves three questions; are some sport programmes becoming less egalitarian? Could there be something like a monopoly either of sport programmes, or TV cable broadcasting? First, the fact that to a particular audience the access of these spectacles of public concern is permitted whereas to others restricted may have nothing to do with egalitarianism. On the contrary, making available these soccer tournaments of popular interest for a group of people, on the grounds that they can afford paying for this extra fee to watch these especial soccer matches, may have much more of elitism rather than a gesture of egalitarianism or equality. Second, there not seem to be neither the presence of a hegemonic power like a monopoly controlling all the existing sport programmes, nor something comparable to an economical group setting up to lobby a great part of the media as in the case of a few newspapers and TV programmes on behalf of screwing into everybody’s head their political perspectives or their distorted version of the present reality. However, there may be something like millions of Argentines trying to watch a soccer event of public interest on TV, but cannot do it since they have not paid for this special charge to watch relevant soccer matches.

The third remaining question is: Is there any law defending the rights of people who for some reason or other cannot watch these public sport spectacles on TV? For the time being, there is an old law of TV and Radio transmission created during the last dictatorship, but apparently falls on deaf ears on the abuses committed on some part of the audience. Fortunately, there is a proposal of a new law called ‘Nueva Ley de Radio Difusión’ that is being discussed in the congress and promises radical changes. For instance, the Art. 65 proposes so far a democratic initiative that is somewhat connected with everything that has been exposed in this paper.

ARTÍCULO 65

La presente ley tiene por objeto crear las medidas necesarias para garantizar el derecho al acceso universal -a través de los medios de comunicación social audiovisuales o sonoros-a los contenidos informativos de interés relevante y de acontecimientos deportivos de encuentros futbolísticos u otro género o especialidad.

La SECRETARÍA DE MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN de la JEFATURA DE GABINETE DE MINISTROS adoptará medidas para que el ejercicio de los derechos exclusivos para la retransmisión o emisión televisiva de determinados acontecimientos de interés general de cualquier naturaleza, como los deportivos, no perjudique el derecho de los ciudadanos a seguir dichos acontecimientos en directo y de manera gratuita, en todo el territorio nacional. En el cumplimiento de estas previsiones, deberá elaborar un listado anual de acontecimientos de interés general para la retransmisión o emisión televisiva, respecto de los cuales el ejercicio de derechos exclusivos deberá ser justo, razonable y no discriminatorio.

[‘PROPUESTA DE PROYECTO DE LEY SERVICIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN AUDIOVISUAL’, pag. 103, 104, http://www.uba.ar/radiodifusion/download/proyecto_ejecutivo.pdf ]

On Capital Market Liberalization and Flexibility of the Labour Market (By Nestor Cevasco)

One of the most interesting reflections by Anup Shah in his article ‘Structural Adjustment: A Major cause of Poverty’, is connected with the idea that the IMF and the World Bank assist some countries financially, but apply neoliberal measures as a pre-requisite for loans. Some of these pre-conditions are listed below:

• Liberalization of the economy or capital Markets.
  
• Flexibility of the labour market.
  
• The role of the state should be minimized.
  
• Privatization should be encouraged.
  

As regards the liberalization of capital markets, the concept may be better worked out as a market where capitals circulate with less restrictive control from state regulations. Hence, the circulation of cash flow into and out from a nation, which may be destined to inversions, is carried out without too much restriction, being in this sense more liberalized. Nevertheless, the effect of this action to the economy of a country seems to be rather negative, as it is observed by Anup Shah in the next paragraph.

‘Capital market liberalization. According to Palast, Stiglitz describes the disastrous capital flows that can ruin economies as being “predictable,” and says that “when [the outflow of capital] happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.’ [‘Structural Adjustment: A Major Cause of Poverty’, subtitle: ‘What is the IMF/ World Bank prescription?’ Anup Shah, October 2008].

In the previous paragraph, Shah introduces Joseph Stiglitz, recognized economist and Nobel Prize in Economy, who argues about the disastrous but ‘predictable’ consequences that the flow of capitals may produce to the economy of a nation. This ‘out flow of capitals’ has somewhat been explained in the previous lines and denotes the taking away of funds from a country, becoming such cash flow as volatile. Interestingly, a nation undergoing such a particular situation is suggested to increase its interest rates up to 30%, 50% and 80%, seducing the so called speculators to return back to a particular nation its capitals again. These increments in the interests rates are both attracting to speculators carrying here and there their assets and to some small savers, people that may or not be interested in increasing their incomes by depositing their small capitals in banks.

The previous context, that for some people is so positive, swears off as soon as the ‘out flow of capitals’ starts again. As a consequence, those small savers who see themselves in risk remove all their assets at once from banks, leading this to a complete bankruptcy. For this reason, protectionist measures are taken, like that one known as ‘The Corralito’, adopted during the economical collapse of Argentina 2001. However, this decision arose from people a huge level of criticism and skepticism, especially from those who had savings in banks, and had not expected that variables like the ‘outflow of capitals’ could have produced so terrible consequences.

As regards the ‘Flexibility of labor market’, the nineties period of Argentina provides for a suitable food for thought. Our representatives, deputies and senators agreed to modify and change our ‘Labor Law’, introducing a concept known as ‘flexibilization,’ which brought new changes to the labor market. Some of the most significant changes are listed below:

• The test period for a factory owner to contract a worker was extended from 3 months to 1 year. This meant that it would take 1 year for a boss to decide whether one would be fit for a job or not. Passed this period, if the worker did not reach to the ‘standards’, he or she was returned to an agency from where had been contracted as an ‘eventual worker’, and was replaced immediately be another one. Thus, the factory owner would be always supplied in time and form by workers. However, it was clear that some workers this system was inappropriate, since they had to wait a year time to be part of the staff or a company.
  
• Creation of agencies for eventual work. These agencies positioned workers in factories, firms or multinational companies, but which only required labor hand for an eventual or transitional period of time regulated according to parameters like production. Thus, agency workers were contracted for 3 or 4 months, but then returned back to the huge staff of unemployed people again, provided they had not been positioned permanently in a firm. 
  

‘On A Pessimist View’ (By Néstor Cevasco)

As I know that many of you are habitual users of Facebook like me, I regarded interesting to share my personal point of view referred to an article from La Nación written by Richard Bernstein. Intelligently, by applying a rhetorical question in order to achieve a pragmatical effect on the reader like introducing the element of doubt and criticism, this writer wonders ‘Es posible que Facebook estupidice a los usuarios?’

Honestly, never had I spent my time in asking myself if Facebook users could possibly become stupid either for investing a considerable part of their precious time in sticking photos on the Internet to expose these to a wide social net of friends and relatives or just for making insignificant comments on their routines which they would like to share with the rest. I should say that I do not agree in the least degree with this writer, although I must humbly recognize that since I introduced myself in Facebook, I have been spending vast hours of my time in entertaining myself, time that could have been used in reading an interesting book or in hearing a serious debate on the Internet for instance.

I think there’s nothing wrong in getting banal with something new. Maybe banality is just a part of a natural process. There are plenty of examples showing that people generally get banal or entertained to the excess whenever they are faced with something new. For example, adolescents getting banal as soon as they get in love for the first time, a little boy that could possibly get banal because his/her father has recently bought a new play station. Constantly, people get banal whenever they are faced with something that attracts powerfully their attention. Sooner or later, this symptom changes either because one gets tired or because there’s a new entertainment ready to replace the previous one. Therefore, this symptom of ‘stupidity’, or in better words, of banality evidenced on people, as soon as it has easy come, must easy go.

Concluding, the idea that facebook can make its users ‘stupid’ is totally unjustifiable. On the contrary, sometimes this label of banality or triviality described by some pessimist, apocalyptic observers on people who naively entertain themselves is just a sign of a transitory symptom which does not last forever and naturally changes almost imperceptibly as soon as something different appears like a serious book, a change of habit or just a different life situations.   

On RFID Microchips and Big Brother (by Néstor Cevasco)

To my delight, one of the books I enjoyed the most in reading was ‘1984’, written by George Orwell in 1948. In this distopian, fictional novel Orwell creates a distinct world, a society whose totalitarian form of government depicts a sub world of party members who are followed by spies. What follows is a list of neologisms implemented by this author in ‘1984’:

Big Brother: an entity with absolute power capable of controlling the party members in the society of 1984 novel. In the Roget’s Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, Big Brother is signalled either as a supreme authority or a tyrant. (Page 425 of the index).

Black white: The acceptance of what authorities say without questioning.

Thought crime: the crime to dare to even think that the authorities could be wrong in a way.

Face crime: (careful, it’s not face book) A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety that carries with it the suggestion of abnormality or of having something to hide.

Thinkpol: The though police whose role is to eliminate thought crime through spying and total surveillance.

Telescreen: an electronic device like a TV screen used to spy or monitor people in their homes or at workplace.

One of the common questions that comes to the reader’s mind after finishing this book is how close we are as a society to the Orwellian perspective of the world. As regards this, it is interesting to observe the spreading of rumours about RFID microchip implantations on humans in a distant future. Such a thing may lead one to believe that the future of our society does not seem to be so far from the paradigmatic vision proposed by Orwell in ‘1984.’

But, what is a RFID? It is a microchip whose acronym means Radio Frequency Identification Device. It is very tiny, as big as the size of a rice grain, and can be inserted underneath the skin of animals or hidden inside things. What is it used for? Technically speaking, it sends a radio frequency signal, or radio waves that can be traced by satellites. These send all the information collected to a PC in order to determine specific parameters such us identification or location. For the time being, such devices are used exclusively in industrial processes or by scientists to monitor groups of animals. However, in a not so distant future, as it is presently rumoured and debated on the Internet, such technology could be used on humans in the form of microchip implantations under the skin. This high technology could be implemented to collect from people valuable information such as insurance company, I.D number, name, and so on. In addition to this, there are those who suspect that such a new technology could possibly be used to monitor and spy people by security service enterprises in the future, exactly like it occurs in Orwell’s novel, but in a real context.

As a conclusion, provided that all these vague rumours of human micro chipping were true, then George Orwell’s vision, of a society of a supposed Big Brother watching all of us, would be very closer to the society to come in the future.

What is Nationalism? (by Néstor Cevasco)

With regard to the article ‘Satire Nationalism,’ written by Flavia, there is, in addition, a very clear explanation on what satire is, including a list of the most famous satirist writers. But, what is nationalism? To enlarge a bit on this concept, I picked up a text by G. Orwell, a modern satirist English writer, who refers to this matter in his article ‘Notes on Nationalism’. According to him, there are some remarkable aspects of this particular word which I will list as follows:

‘Nationalism is the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.’

‘Nationalism is different from patriotism which is the devotion for a particular place or a way of living that one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.’

‘Nationalism, in the extended sense, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, anti-Semitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism.’

‘Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. In this sense, he spends part of his life in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible (Orwell George;1945)

According to Orwell, it’s worth emphasizing that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. In this sense he quotes: ‘a nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist- that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating- but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.’