"Me encanta que me encantes", dice el boludo éste. El mensaje es simple, por eso pesa.
Pa la foquita que me encanta. Nos vemos en el Auditorio petizo!!!!
Está bien , está bien, a petición de la Foquita, la Conchaza bogotana y el compa tigre borinque, van otros vídeos, pa la borrahcera de la Helda, con la pelusita, el dr. Peréz, y con la ausencia notable de la guibora-padre-metallico y la boñita always cute.
30 may 2008
Quién será más feliz, ellos o ellos?
Seems to be impossible, no? This snippet from the BBC, proves otherwise.
Isolated tribe spotted in Brazil
One of South America's few remaining uncontacted indigenous tribes has been spotted and photographed on the border between Brazil and Peru.
The Brazilian government says it took the images to prove the tribe exists and help protect its land.
The pictures, taken from an aeroplane, show red-painted tribe members brandishing bows and arrows.
More than half the world's 100 uncontacted tribes live in Brazil or Peru, Survival International says.
Stephen Corry, the director of the group - which supports tribal people around the world - said such tribes would "soon be made extinct" if their land was not protected.
Follow the link to read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426794.stm
Isolated tribe spotted in Brazil
One of South America's few remaining uncontacted indigenous tribes has been spotted and photographed on the border between Brazil and Peru.
The Brazilian government says it took the images to prove the tribe exists and help protect its land.
The pictures, taken from an aeroplane, show red-painted tribe members brandishing bows and arrows.
More than half the world's 100 uncontacted tribes live in Brazil or Peru, Survival International says.
Stephen Corry, the director of the group - which supports tribal people around the world - said such tribes would "soon be made extinct" if their land was not protected.
Follow the link to read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426794.stm
29 may 2008
The world belongs to those with at least two tongues
"They don't even try to understand us", no, and that's the reason why they think of us as a blister in their tongue.
In Miami, Spanish is becoming the primary language
By GISELA SALOMON
MIAMI (AP) - Melissa Green's mother spoke Spanish, but she never learned - her father forbid it. Today, that's a frequent problem in this city where the English-speaking population is outnumbered.
The 49-year-old flower shop owner and Miami native said her inability to speak "espanol" makes it difficult to conduct business, seek help at stores and even ask directions. She finds it "frustrating."
"It makes it hard for some people to find a job because they don't speak Spanish, and I don't think that it is right," said Green, who sometimes calls a Spanish-speaking friend to translate for customers who don't speak English.
"Sometimes I think they should learn it," she said.
(AP) Librarian Martha Phillips pauses as she talks to a reporter in Miami, Monday, April 21, 2008.... In many areas of Miami, Spanish has become the predominant language, replacing English in everyday life. Anyone from Latin America could feel at home on the streets, without having to pronounce a single word in English.
In stores, shopkeepers wait on their clients in Spanish. Universities offer programs for Spanish speakers. And in supermarkets, banks, restaurants - even at the post office and government offices - information is given and assistance is offered in Spanish. In Miami, doctors and nurses speak Spanish with their patients and a large portion of advertising is in Spanish. Daily newspapers and radio and television stations cater to the Hispanic public.
But this situation, so pleasing to Latin American immigrants, makes some English speakers feel marginalized. In the 1950s, it's estimated that more than 80 percent of Miami-Dade County residents were non-Hispanic whites. But in 2006, the Census Bureau estimates that number was only 18.5 percent, and in 2015 it is forecast to be 14 percent. Hispanics now make up about 60 percent.
"The Anglo population is leaving," said Juan Clark, a sociology professor at Miami Dade College. "One of the reactions is to emigrate toward the north. They resent the fact that (an American) has to learn Spanish in order to have advantages to work. If one doesn't speak Spanish, it's a disadvantage."
According to the Census, 58.5 percent of the county's 2.4 million residents speak Spanish - and half of those say they don't speak English well. English-only speakers make up 27.2 percent of the county's residents.
In the mainly Cuban city of Hialeah and in the Miami neighborhood of Little Havana, 94 percent of residents identified themselves as Hispanic.
Andrew Lynch, an expert on linguistics and bilingualism at the University of Miami, said that the presence of Spanish-speakers first became an issue in Miami-Dade County in the 1960s and '70s with the arrival of Cuban immigrants and intensified in the '80s with immigrants from not just Cuba, but Argentina, Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America. The exodus of English speakers soon followed.
James McCleary, his wife and two children left Miami in 1987 for Vermont, where he is now a farmer. McCleary, 58, said his inability to speak Spanish made it difficult for him to find work - it once took seven months to get hired as a cook.
"The job market was very tough. It was very, very difficult," he said.
His wife, Lauren, was born and raised in Miami and they visit at least twice a year, but she feels that it's no longer her hometown.
"I don't like being there anymore. It is very, very different," she said. "I cannot live there anymore, I can't speak their language."
Nevertheless, she likes the diversity of the population of South Florida and regrets not learning Spanish in school.
Librarian Martha Phillips, 61, believes those who speak Spanish will continue to have more opportunities and she doesn't think that's necessarily fair. Phillips said she is sorry to see non-Spanish-speakers abandoning Miami, and said she's concerned that the area "will be like a branch of Latin America."
"I do resent the fact that people seem to expect that the people who live here adjust to their ways, rather than learning English and making adjustments," she said. "Obviously I don't expect an older person to learn to speak English, but younger people come in and they don't seem to make much of an effort to learn to adapt to this country and they expect us to adapt to them."
Some Spanish speakers say they have their own trouble with those who only speak English.
Mary Bravo, a 37-year-old Venezuelan business owner, moved to Miami nine years ago. She understands English but only speaks a little.
"This land is theirs. We should try to speak English," she said, "but they don't even try to understand us."
In Miami, Spanish is becoming the primary language
By GISELA SALOMON
MIAMI (AP) - Melissa Green's mother spoke Spanish, but she never learned - her father forbid it. Today, that's a frequent problem in this city where the English-speaking population is outnumbered.
The 49-year-old flower shop owner and Miami native said her inability to speak "espanol" makes it difficult to conduct business, seek help at stores and even ask directions. She finds it "frustrating."
"It makes it hard for some people to find a job because they don't speak Spanish, and I don't think that it is right," said Green, who sometimes calls a Spanish-speaking friend to translate for customers who don't speak English.
"Sometimes I think they should learn it," she said.
(AP) Librarian Martha Phillips pauses as she talks to a reporter in Miami, Monday, April 21, 2008.... In many areas of Miami, Spanish has become the predominant language, replacing English in everyday life. Anyone from Latin America could feel at home on the streets, without having to pronounce a single word in English.
In stores, shopkeepers wait on their clients in Spanish. Universities offer programs for Spanish speakers. And in supermarkets, banks, restaurants - even at the post office and government offices - information is given and assistance is offered in Spanish. In Miami, doctors and nurses speak Spanish with their patients and a large portion of advertising is in Spanish. Daily newspapers and radio and television stations cater to the Hispanic public.
But this situation, so pleasing to Latin American immigrants, makes some English speakers feel marginalized. In the 1950s, it's estimated that more than 80 percent of Miami-Dade County residents were non-Hispanic whites. But in 2006, the Census Bureau estimates that number was only 18.5 percent, and in 2015 it is forecast to be 14 percent. Hispanics now make up about 60 percent.
"The Anglo population is leaving," said Juan Clark, a sociology professor at Miami Dade College. "One of the reactions is to emigrate toward the north. They resent the fact that (an American) has to learn Spanish in order to have advantages to work. If one doesn't speak Spanish, it's a disadvantage."
According to the Census, 58.5 percent of the county's 2.4 million residents speak Spanish - and half of those say they don't speak English well. English-only speakers make up 27.2 percent of the county's residents.
In the mainly Cuban city of Hialeah and in the Miami neighborhood of Little Havana, 94 percent of residents identified themselves as Hispanic.
Andrew Lynch, an expert on linguistics and bilingualism at the University of Miami, said that the presence of Spanish-speakers first became an issue in Miami-Dade County in the 1960s and '70s with the arrival of Cuban immigrants and intensified in the '80s with immigrants from not just Cuba, but Argentina, Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America. The exodus of English speakers soon followed.
James McCleary, his wife and two children left Miami in 1987 for Vermont, where he is now a farmer. McCleary, 58, said his inability to speak Spanish made it difficult for him to find work - it once took seven months to get hired as a cook.
"The job market was very tough. It was very, very difficult," he said.
His wife, Lauren, was born and raised in Miami and they visit at least twice a year, but she feels that it's no longer her hometown.
"I don't like being there anymore. It is very, very different," she said. "I cannot live there anymore, I can't speak their language."
Nevertheless, she likes the diversity of the population of South Florida and regrets not learning Spanish in school.
Librarian Martha Phillips, 61, believes those who speak Spanish will continue to have more opportunities and she doesn't think that's necessarily fair. Phillips said she is sorry to see non-Spanish-speakers abandoning Miami, and said she's concerned that the area "will be like a branch of Latin America."
"I do resent the fact that people seem to expect that the people who live here adjust to their ways, rather than learning English and making adjustments," she said. "Obviously I don't expect an older person to learn to speak English, but younger people come in and they don't seem to make much of an effort to learn to adapt to this country and they expect us to adapt to them."
Some Spanish speakers say they have their own trouble with those who only speak English.
Mary Bravo, a 37-year-old Venezuelan business owner, moved to Miami nine years ago. She understands English but only speaks a little.
"This land is theirs. We should try to speak English," she said, "but they don't even try to understand us."
New York, avant-garde
The more ‘straight’ people supporting this kind of initiatives, the bigger advances will be achieved. There’s no more space in this world for the fuck’in retarded folks who enjoy insisting in the me-cago-en-tu-madre-ignorant-macho-menance. Yastuvo.
From The New York Times:
May 30, 2008
Editorial
A Step Closer to Justice
New Yorkers should be proud of Gov. David Paterson’s efforts to assure basic civil rights for same-sex couples married outside the state. Now, the State Legislature should prove its own commitment to equality and justice by granting gay couples the right to marry in New York State.
Mr. Paterson has directed state agencies to respond to a recent court ruling by reviewing more than 1,300 state policies that affect married people. He wants to ensure that New York fully recognizes all legal marriage licenses, including those granted to gay couples in places like Massachusetts, Canada, South Africa and soon, California.
If that sounds like mere paper shuffling in Albany, it is not. It means that New Yorkers who marry in San Francisco or Montreal can return home knowing that their rights will be protected. That is progress, especially since many states have specifically outlawed even the recognition of same-sex marriages granted legally elsewhere.
Despite the growing political outcry, Mr. Paterson is on firm legal, as well as moral, ground.
For more than a century, New York has recognized marriage contracts from other states — even if those couples could not legally marry in New York. New York does not grant licenses for common law marriages, but if such marriages are legal elsewhere, they are recognized in New York. In February, a New York State appeals court ruled unanimously that this “marriage recognition rule” also had to apply to any same-sex couple with a legal marriage license obtained elsewhere.
While most Democrats in Albany have pushed for legislation to legalize gay marriage, most Republicans have argued that it is enough to adjust state laws to make them more equitable for same-sex couples. These half-measures have not worked.
The New York City Bar Association and Empire State Pride Agenda last year identified more than 1,300 aspects of New York State law that either deny rights to gay couples or make their lives far more complicated.
There are cases of one partner being denied access to a mate’s hospital room. People who have spent their adult lives together without the benefit of a marriage license can be compelled to testify against each other. Benefits for survivors from workers’ compensation go only to a legally recognized spouse.
After one of the most vigorous and emotional floor debates in recent Albany history, the Democratic-controlled Assembly has passed a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in New York. The Republican-controlled Senate has refused, so far, to act.
Governor Paterson has worked hard to promote comity in Albany — we fear at the cost of many essential reforms. He should use his influence with the Republican Senate leader, Joseph Bruno, to get the Assembly version of the marriage bill passed this year.
No matter their sexual orientation, New Yorkers should have the same fundamental right to marry. Governor Paterson has taken an important first step, but it is not enough. Now he needs to persuade the rest of Albany to do what is fair.
From The New York Times:
May 30, 2008
Editorial
A Step Closer to Justice
New Yorkers should be proud of Gov. David Paterson’s efforts to assure basic civil rights for same-sex couples married outside the state. Now, the State Legislature should prove its own commitment to equality and justice by granting gay couples the right to marry in New York State.
Mr. Paterson has directed state agencies to respond to a recent court ruling by reviewing more than 1,300 state policies that affect married people. He wants to ensure that New York fully recognizes all legal marriage licenses, including those granted to gay couples in places like Massachusetts, Canada, South Africa and soon, California.
If that sounds like mere paper shuffling in Albany, it is not. It means that New Yorkers who marry in San Francisco or Montreal can return home knowing that their rights will be protected. That is progress, especially since many states have specifically outlawed even the recognition of same-sex marriages granted legally elsewhere.
Despite the growing political outcry, Mr. Paterson is on firm legal, as well as moral, ground.
For more than a century, New York has recognized marriage contracts from other states — even if those couples could not legally marry in New York. New York does not grant licenses for common law marriages, but if such marriages are legal elsewhere, they are recognized in New York. In February, a New York State appeals court ruled unanimously that this “marriage recognition rule” also had to apply to any same-sex couple with a legal marriage license obtained elsewhere.
While most Democrats in Albany have pushed for legislation to legalize gay marriage, most Republicans have argued that it is enough to adjust state laws to make them more equitable for same-sex couples. These half-measures have not worked.
The New York City Bar Association and Empire State Pride Agenda last year identified more than 1,300 aspects of New York State law that either deny rights to gay couples or make their lives far more complicated.
There are cases of one partner being denied access to a mate’s hospital room. People who have spent their adult lives together without the benefit of a marriage license can be compelled to testify against each other. Benefits for survivors from workers’ compensation go only to a legally recognized spouse.
After one of the most vigorous and emotional floor debates in recent Albany history, the Democratic-controlled Assembly has passed a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in New York. The Republican-controlled Senate has refused, so far, to act.
Governor Paterson has worked hard to promote comity in Albany — we fear at the cost of many essential reforms. He should use his influence with the Republican Senate leader, Joseph Bruno, to get the Assembly version of the marriage bill passed this year.
No matter their sexual orientation, New Yorkers should have the same fundamental right to marry. Governor Paterson has taken an important first step, but it is not enough. Now he needs to persuade the rest of Albany to do what is fair.
27 may 2008
El estímulo antiinmigrante
Even my 'chiquita' wife, la foquita, may be considered illegal, even though she has a visa and she is with me, sharing and suffering the worst part of this adventure titled "us in the US", just for love.
The anti-immigrant rebate
Some taxpayers won't get stimulus checks because of the status of a foreign-born spouse.
May 27, 2008
Call someone anti-immigrant for opposing public services for non-citizens, and chances are you'll be corrected. It's anti-illegal-immigrant, you'll be told, not anti-immigrant. To some extent, that's true. But the arcane rules of the new economic stimulus package, which keep tax rebates from going to many legal residents and even citizens, show that the realities of immigration policy are more complicated, and more hostile to the foreign born, than such an answer implies.Under pressure from various groups -- let's call them "groups concerned about immigration" -- that opposed sending rebates to illegal immigrants, Congress wrote the package so that only people with Social Security numbers would get the money. That includes spouses of people who are legally employed in this country and, in a nasty extension, the employees themselves if they filed a joint tax return. In other words, say a citizen or legal immigrant files a joint return with someone who is here legally but doesn't have a work visa. That household won't get a tax rebate.Why aren't the groups that are only anti- illegal-immigrant lobbying against this inequitable treatment?Dan Stein, whose Federation for American Immigration Reform had pushed to keep the money from illegal immigrants, has no problem with how things worked out. Legal immigrants, he said, are "people whose connections to the society are more tenuous." Barbara Coe, who founded the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, finds the marriage provision unfair -- unless, she said, the employee in the family was hired legally as "cheaper labor." Yet no one tries to stop this "cheaper labor" with supposedly tenuous connections from paying taxes.Congress is hastening to fix the problem, but only for U.S. troops:H.R.6081: deployed overseas. That's not enough. This country should send a clear message that it will not engage in official reaction against its legal foreign-born residents. The spousal provision isn't just anti-illegal-immigrant, it is anti-immigrant, and it is unfair.
The anti-immigrant rebate
Some taxpayers won't get stimulus checks because of the status of a foreign-born spouse.
May 27, 2008
Call someone anti-immigrant for opposing public services for non-citizens, and chances are you'll be corrected. It's anti-illegal-immigrant, you'll be told, not anti-immigrant. To some extent, that's true. But the arcane rules of the new economic stimulus package, which keep tax rebates from going to many legal residents and even citizens, show that the realities of immigration policy are more complicated, and more hostile to the foreign born, than such an answer implies.Under pressure from various groups -- let's call them "groups concerned about immigration" -- that opposed sending rebates to illegal immigrants, Congress wrote the package so that only people with Social Security numbers would get the money. That includes spouses of people who are legally employed in this country and, in a nasty extension, the employees themselves if they filed a joint tax return. In other words, say a citizen or legal immigrant files a joint return with someone who is here legally but doesn't have a work visa. That household won't get a tax rebate.Why aren't the groups that are only anti- illegal-immigrant lobbying against this inequitable treatment?Dan Stein, whose Federation for American Immigration Reform had pushed to keep the money from illegal immigrants, has no problem with how things worked out. Legal immigrants, he said, are "people whose connections to the society are more tenuous." Barbara Coe, who founded the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, finds the marriage provision unfair -- unless, she said, the employee in the family was hired legally as "cheaper labor." Yet no one tries to stop this "cheaper labor" with supposedly tenuous connections from paying taxes.Congress is hastening to fix the problem, but only for U.S. troops:H.R.6081: deployed overseas. That's not enough. This country should send a clear message that it will not engage in official reaction against its legal foreign-born residents. The spousal provision isn't just anti-illegal-immigrant, it is anti-immigrant, and it is unfair.
Escucharon a Calamaro, pasáme un chourrito, ya no hay tos
In a recent "cojonuda" legislative decision by a Baires tribunal, possession of “personal use” amounts of illegal drugs was considered a right that is now protected under the Argentinean Constitution. Let's check it out, and maybe we will learn from nuestros compas sudamericanos.
Un joven que fue encontrado y detenido en la vía pública con una cantidad mínima de marihuana para "consumo personal" fue sobreseído por la Cámara de Casación Penal bonaerense, que consideró que es un "ejercicio de la libertad" de cada persona, quien tiene "derecho a la privacidad".
Así lo resolvió la Sala I del Tribunal al rechazar un recurso presentado por el fiscal general de San Isidro Dulio Cámpora, que apeló el sobreseimiento que la Cámara de Garantías había dictado a favor del joven. "La tenencia para consumo personal es una acción protegida por el derecho a la privacidad que es el basamento de las libertades civiles.
Lejos de ser una conducta prohibida es una conducta que consagra el ejercicio de la libertad", señalaron los jueces Benjamín Sal Llargués, Carlos Natiello y Horacio Piombo. Para los jueces, "criminalizar el daño que alguien –eventualmente- se produzca a sí mismo, como en el caso de consumo de drogas, significa la asunción estatal de un criterio paternalista autoritario que, por regla, resulta ajeno al principio de autonomía de la persona antes enunciado y nos remite a las peores épocas de nuestra historia reciente".
"La ley convierte y estigmatiza al consumidor con la etiqueta de delincuente y lo castiga no obstante considerarlo víctima de un `vicio´ o de `una conducta desviada´", señalaron en el fallo."Al penalizar al simple tenedor (de drogas) para consumo personal, el Estado adiciona a su problema de drogadicción la criminalización, insertándolo en el sistema penal, creándole un antecedente que muy probablemente lo etiquete y lo perjudique en su futuro provocando, eventualmente, su estigmatización”, agregaron los jueces.
Además, los magistrados tuvieron en cuenta la escasa cantidad de marihuana secuestrada al joven (0,4 décimos). "Dicha conducta queda comprendida en la esfera privada que protege la Constitución, por cuanto no causa riesgo o daño concreto a la salud pública. En el caso, el estupefaciente se ha tenido para uso personal, porque el quantum incautado revela a todas luces la motivación del tenedor".
De esta manera, los jueces declararon la inconstitucionalidad del artículo 14 de la Ley 23.737 la cual establece que "la pena será de un mes a dos años de prisión cuando por su escasa cantidad y demás circunstancias, sugiere inequívocamente que la tenencia es para uso personal".
Un joven que fue encontrado y detenido en la vía pública con una cantidad mínima de marihuana para "consumo personal" fue sobreseído por la Cámara de Casación Penal bonaerense, que consideró que es un "ejercicio de la libertad" de cada persona, quien tiene "derecho a la privacidad".
Así lo resolvió la Sala I del Tribunal al rechazar un recurso presentado por el fiscal general de San Isidro Dulio Cámpora, que apeló el sobreseimiento que la Cámara de Garantías había dictado a favor del joven. "La tenencia para consumo personal es una acción protegida por el derecho a la privacidad que es el basamento de las libertades civiles.
Lejos de ser una conducta prohibida es una conducta que consagra el ejercicio de la libertad", señalaron los jueces Benjamín Sal Llargués, Carlos Natiello y Horacio Piombo. Para los jueces, "criminalizar el daño que alguien –eventualmente- se produzca a sí mismo, como en el caso de consumo de drogas, significa la asunción estatal de un criterio paternalista autoritario que, por regla, resulta ajeno al principio de autonomía de la persona antes enunciado y nos remite a las peores épocas de nuestra historia reciente".
"La ley convierte y estigmatiza al consumidor con la etiqueta de delincuente y lo castiga no obstante considerarlo víctima de un `vicio´ o de `una conducta desviada´", señalaron en el fallo."Al penalizar al simple tenedor (de drogas) para consumo personal, el Estado adiciona a su problema de drogadicción la criminalización, insertándolo en el sistema penal, creándole un antecedente que muy probablemente lo etiquete y lo perjudique en su futuro provocando, eventualmente, su estigmatización”, agregaron los jueces.
Además, los magistrados tuvieron en cuenta la escasa cantidad de marihuana secuestrada al joven (0,4 décimos). "Dicha conducta queda comprendida en la esfera privada que protege la Constitución, por cuanto no causa riesgo o daño concreto a la salud pública. En el caso, el estupefaciente se ha tenido para uso personal, porque el quantum incautado revela a todas luces la motivación del tenedor".
De esta manera, los jueces declararon la inconstitucionalidad del artículo 14 de la Ley 23.737 la cual establece que "la pena será de un mes a dos años de prisión cuando por su escasa cantidad y demás circunstancias, sugiere inequívocamente que la tenencia es para uso personal".
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
