Perhaps it would be from Martians -or that’s what it feels like personally- to address these lines without alluding to the objectively historical fact that Argentine society starred in after winning the World Cup.
The issue is temporary, although the vitamins will prolong their effect in many people.
Nor is it a matter of insisting on the alleged failures that prevented direct contact between the crowd and the bus that was carrying the players. Above all, there was a central success, in which we fully agree with Mario Wainfeld: the police did not interfere and thanks to that no serious incident was recorded because, in episodes of this nature, gray hair works as an element of provocation.
In the rest of the world, which admires our unblemished massiveness, it will be different. But this is Argentina and, in particular, the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires. Let’s leave organizational perfection to all experts in front of millions of people, dedicated to the public space in a handful of kilometers.
The same point points to the endless controversy about whether the players should have gone to Casa Rosada.
It was better to “officialize” a hullabaloo that, in this society, acquires the status of State identity. However, the Government chose to accept the preventions of the anti-political discourse and sentiment. For surrendering to what they will say. It doesn’t matter. It was already.
What does matter is that this celebration, which cannot be found anywhere, speaks of an argent exuberance that can be incorporated into any supposedly serious analysis. And that demonstration summons to notice two “blocks” of characters.
One is that of the depressed and indignant who wonder how it is possible that the people dedicate themselves to these festive tasks, instead of applying such street power to urgent causes. They look at “others”, from easy comments that come out for free, with criteria of moral superiority.
The dynamic sectors of our society live on the street, like no other. They picket the bottom of the well, the middle class and “the field” that cuts off routes. He goes out to express himself against the 2×1 in favor of the genocidal; against “insecurity”; in “vegetables” in the Plaza de Mayo; in camps for the judicial torture of Milagro Sala; because you don’t go through a traffic light, or through a dangerous crossing that is no man’s land; in defense of soup kitchens. Lots of etc. He goes out all the time, in a not so figurative sense. And also, he leaves for the Selection.
What is it that some militants of the pristine ideological widowhood do not quite understand?
Wasn’t it that you should never lose joy?
Or can this party be equated with the collective hypnosis of the ’78 World Cup? let’s not fuck
The other block is that of the media and journalists who kept the poorly concealed hope that the Argentine team would leave the World Cup as soon as possible, so that the Government would not capitalize on the popular joy. Frustrated that aspiration, now it turns out that the players are the ethical example that the Government lacks. Exasperates, but does not amaze.
With the aspiration that these issues are settled (not because of this column, of course, but because of circumstances), one of the most serious institutional conflicts occurs, if not the worst, since the democratic restoration.
Definitively paints a Supreme Court encouraged to place itself above elementary common sense.
There are four guys who have already crossed all limits – that is to say: they will continue to cross it until they are stopped in some way – with the ruling that favors the richest city in the country in the distribution of tax funds.
Martín Granovsky, in his column last Friday in Page 12, makes a simple and brilliant tour about how it was, and is, that those supreme ruling in affectation of millions of Argentines; of the province of Buenos Aires in the first place, for reasons of population, size and distribution. And then, from the rest of the provinces.
It was and is because the Court has been challenging the President; because he also comes fighting the vice; because, at the time, the Government did not make any movement to change the Court (expanding it, for example), nor to give a sign of political strength to the federal Justice; because the Court wants to take power away from the Government; because the Government lost power, as is even revealed by the fact that the National Team has not even stepped foot in the Casa Rosada. And because, without the popular counterweight, the Court is more sensitive than ever to the establishment and macrismo.
As Granovsky points out, it does not mean violating the independence of powers. He happens to know when to act successfully.
“Néstor Kirchner took less than 15 days between when he took office and the moment in which, on national television, he called Congress, as an expression of the people, to impeach the Menemista court with an automatic majority. On the other hand, Alberto and Cristina could not even agree, at the beginning of the administration, when they were still talking, about who should replace the interim attorney Eduardo Casal” (here it could be added that, strictly speaking, they did not even agree on that before of management, because everything ended in agreeing on a formula and distributing charges among the tribes).
The concrete thing, as if the above were not enough, is that this brutal privilege in favor of the CABA cambiemita, failed by four institutional oligarchs who are not accountable to anyone, harms the entire country.
There was an official reaction to this, supported by an overwhelming majority of governors, of ignoring the ruling. For unfulfillable. Crisis of terminal powers, say little less than the dominant media for “disobeying” the Court.
Governors, mayors and candidates of Together for Change are minimally in basic coherence problems, which will have to be seen how it affects them.
Larreta celebrates. But, in principle, there is something specific that would be very difficult for them to explain: the Court resolved to benefit the people of Buenos Aires against the declared federalism. The constitutionalist Eduardo Barcesat warns that, strictly speaking, the Government is obliged to disobey the ruling because it violates a law voted by the National Congress. Because the current Budget does not contemplate this outrage. And because it governs the concept of “predicament”, which compels it not to affect other powers of the State to the point of breaking it or influencing the justified distribution.
Welcome be the crisis that the speakers of Power declaim, if it is because, finally, the Government decided to some kind of disobedience against one of its factors.
Whoever signs runs, as technically appropriate, legal lucubrations. But, likewise, he again warns that vetoing opinions because there is no professional knowledge is, as often as in this, extortion.
From its directed limbo, the Court does and undoes whatever it pleases.
Its president votes for himself as head of the body, and of the body that must propose and control the judges. Causes that are dormant, as much as they may seem, even in the case of a precautionary one, are invariably awakened when they benefit the ideological interest of their substance. They don’t produce even a sketchy protocol statement when the scandal of executive chats from executives is revealed. Clarion, officials, magistrates, at the headquarters of lake magnates no longer hidden. Nor did they say a word about the assassination attempt.
It is an endless list of atrocities, which “the people” would not appreciate as directly linked to their daily economy. False: They are also in charge of utility rates and how taxes are apportioned.
The Court is, without going any further, on every cable, TV, cell phone, and Internet bill, because its monopolistic or oligopolistic partners go unpunished.
And now it ruled a distribution of funds that harms the entire country, because the Nation should adjust in public works, in budget items to balance charges, as soon as it is, to the exchange benefit endorsed by the gentlemen on the fourth floor of Courts that do not pay Profits.
Hallelujah if the time has come to stand up to them.
P/D: Once again, about to vacation and at the end of the year, I want and need to thank the readers and forum members of this newspaper who, whether through their negative criticism or their praise, never leave me insensitive about what I should correct or confirm. Thanks with all my heart. Edward
