MANAGUA—Striking a reconciliatory and wistful tone that sounded more like a retirement speech than an inaugural address, President Daniel Ortega was sworn in to office last night in front of a packed crowd of Sandinista supporters, government officials and invited business leaders who shifted uncomfortably in plastic chairs during his hour-long soliloquy.
Accompanied by a curious collection of foreign leaders—from Guatemala’s right-wing president-elect Otto Pérez and Venezuela’s left-wing convalescing firebrand Hugo Chávez, to Iran’s lighting-rod President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Aruba’s little-known Mike Eman—Ortega focused his inaugural address on current events, history and the importance of world peace.
“Today, more than ever, the world and humanity demand peace with dignity, peace with justice, peace with unity with this great family on planet earth,” Ortega said, after some momentary sound difficulties, where the first five minutes of his speech alternated between barely audible words drowned out by blaring campaign music and barely audible words spoken into a dead microphone. Ortega didn’t seem to notice either.
The president started his speech with his stump line about how his reelection means that all Nicaraguans are president, adding—with a rare, boyish smile that lights up his face every time Chávez is in town— “Even Pancho is president,” referring to his 2011 election opponent Fabio Gadea, who still refuses to admit defeat two months later.
Flanked by the handful of foreign leaders who came to the inaugural event, Ortega spoke in stream of consciousness, drifting effortlessly through history from one topic to another. At his side, clapping arhythmically to the campaign music and wearing a flowing, Earth-Mother white gown with a cluttered accessory of bracelets, rings and beaded necklaces, was Ortega’s wife, Rosario Murillo.
“Tonight we are celebrating, in his historic Plaza of the Revolution, a new July 19,” Ortega said, referring to the revolutionary victory from 32 years ago. “Before we had to resort to armed struggle to oust the tyrant imposed on us, but this time we relied on the truth.”
Ortega said that the “power of the people” is nothing to be feared, because it “has given us great stability for the past five years.”
He repeated his earlier promise of continuity, saying, “We have to keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing for the past five years, but better, and more of it.”
The president promised that his government will continue to promote change along lines that are “Christian, socialist and in solidarity.”
“There is no other road forward for us,” he said.
World affairs
President Ortega also dedicated a healthy amount of his unscripted speech to taking listeners on a nonlinear journey through historic events that are loosely associated with people he saw sitting around him, or words he heard himself say.
He spoke of the Suriname Revolution of 1980, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the Honduran coup of 2009, and the teachings of Christ in the year 31. He criticized the executions of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Kadafi. He lamented the tsunami in Japan last year, and congratulated El Salvador’s Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) for picking “the ideal candidate” in 2009.
While a bit rambling, Ortega’s overall message was one of peace and tolerance, mixed with a bit of ideology. He denounced war and nuclear armament. He defended Iran’s right to develop a “peaceful” nuclear program for energy, and denounced an international “conspiracy” against Ahmadinejad, who smiled widely and nodded at odd times as his translator, Iranian Ambassador to Nicaragua, Akbar Esmaeil Pour, tried his best to keep up with Ortega’s speech.
Ortega called on Israel to renounce its nuclear weapons program, saying, “Christ never said, ‘Arm yourself, Israel.’ Christ taught peace, reconciliation and love. And that’s why they assassinated him.”
No friends like new friends
Unlike Ortega’s 2007 inauguration, which attracted a large group of foreign leaders and high-ranking delegations from the entire hemisphere and Europe, Tuesday night’s inaugural fiesta was a poorly attended affair.
Only three Central American presidents—those of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras— bothered to show up, breaking a long tradition of perfect attendance in Central America. Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla did not return the favor by attending Ortega’s inauguration after he went to hers in 2010, and was publically jeered. Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli originally said he would come, but bagged at the last minute.
Other than Spain’s dapper and ornamental Prince Filipe, no European countries sent any high-ranking delegates, nor did Russia.
The most notable absence was that of the U.S., Nicaragua’s main partner for trade and tourism. For the first time in recent democratic history of the region, Washington didn’t spring for the airfare to send anyone down for the presidential inauguration. And the embassy’s chief of mission didn’t even bother driving across town to attend the event, sending the political counselor instead.
As grateful as Ortega was to have the leaders of Suriname, Aruba, Curacao and Haiti at his inaugural event, their combined presence didn’t do much to mask the absence of others.
Though Ortega’s inaugural address was encouragingly inclusive and reconciliatory, his failure to spell out any government program or plan (other than the promise of continuity) and his rambling focus on the past gave the image of a country that is slightly adrift in time and space, captained by a man who is easily distracted and painfully unscripted.
But all that’s old news.
The worrisome part of Tuesday’s inauguration is that Nicaragua’s standing in the world looks increasingly lonely, forcing Ortega to reach out to new friends to fill the emptied chairs at his party table.
The time is fast running out on policies that refuse to accept the necessity of force in changing Iranian behavior. Military action obviously involves unknowable risks and costs; but allowing a rogue regime, one situated in the middle of a region that produces one-fifth of the world’s oil, to acquire nuclear weapons will likely end up subjecting our security and interests to much greater risks and much higher costs.
Not to worry,Pedro. The Israeis will take care of Iran.
Again an article tainted by a one side opinion. I hope ND permits this comment since it is critical to ND. The whole article is not objective at all. In fact, ND is not reporting the news, they are reporting their opinion. Opinions are for the readers of the article and consequently their comments. True journalism is to report the raw data you have observed. Once it is contaminated and filtered with opinion then it becomes “fair and balanced” just like fox news.
Why bring Fox News into this, many of us enjoy Fox News, some of their programs are the highest rated in the USA. You don’t mention MSN, CNN, or BBC which we also watch (when the Leader for Life dosn’t block them so we only see his and his wifes speech making)), maybe u b propagandized and opinionated, not so fair and balanced!
You clearly do not live in Nicaragua and have no idea what you are talking about. The Ortegas stole these elections just like they stole the 2008 elections. Only a handfull of 2nd. rate nations attended this clowns coronation because the world knows hie election is a joke.
Dear Jane Meyers, tainted with what?
Tainted are the government´s channels, 4,6,8,10,16. I dear ask you then, is that true journalisim?
The goverment’s and its massive control over the media (television, radio, press) makes fox news look like mere babies in diapers.
The Nicaraguan Dispatch is a refreshing outlet for the mayority of Nicaraguan´s living in Nicaragua like myself and outside of the country ( a large group of the most educated and promising youth leaves this country every year thanks to the corruption induced poverty of this country).
We are the mayority, the almost 70% of nicaraguans who’s liberty and civil rights have been violeted. We did not vote for the clown (Ortega), it is unconstitutional that he even ran for another term. Everyone knows that the Ortega regime stole the elections (mountains of digital and hard evidence).
I imagine by your comment that you are a left wing “socialist idealist”, who has no clue of what really goes on the the Alba-third world-dictatorships. Come live here, walk a mile in our shoes, and quit idealizing a lost cause.
Ortega is the new Somoza, all the blood shed to take out one dictator wasted in the hands of another meglomanic with an insatiable thirst for power and greed.
If you do not like the views of the mayority of Nicaraguan´s go watch channel 4 or many of the other alba money bought waste of space press outlets!
Lucia, you are right until you come to your prejudice against left-wing socialist idealists, as you define it. If you live here and follow the news and reality, what makes you think that the country is ruled by left wing socialists? Can’t see them. It is a new family-oligarchy; they want the country be a mixture of German Democratic Republic and los Pitufos, but has nothing to do with socialism or left wing. In the US you neither take people for that what they say they are, verdad?
Opression of freedom, of free expression, of critical minds are some of the symptoms to know that it is not socialism; fraude and lies are the next one; obeying IMF is one, giving away limosnas instead of developping the country and the poor majority in a sustainable way is one etc.
Read Rosa Luxemburg first, before you opinion on socialism. (If you need newer ones, I’ll send you a reading list.) Socialism or barbarie, she said. The US stands for barbarie. The Nicaraguan government, too.
Lucia, I wonder if you live in Nicaragua. If you do then I wonder what environment you socialise with. The majority are happy with Ortega. If you can not see that please open your eyes! I would not trust any tv channel. I trust the people who live around me, those I meet on the street or in the “campo”. Stop being in front of the TV because that’s the biggest threat to our mental well being. Watching the news and television is fear, selling things i don’t need and shows that make me brain dead. Start walking around your community, speak to humble families you never before dared to talk too. It will make you see that it is not a scary world. Rather it will confirm you that, as you do, you only want the best for you children and family. The US, Iran, Austria, Nicaragua and all other want their children to grow in peace, justice, equality and liberty.
Lucia, hear, hear! Muy bien dicho!
you obviously don’t live in Nicaragua. lol
@Jane Meyers, I agree completely with you, as a matter of fact I have expressed the same before. It’s not that you can not write whatever you want, is the fact that one thing is reporting, as transmiting news, unaldulterated or tainted by personal ideas and points of view, and another thing is writing an opinion. That is easily solved by announcing it in the header of the article. I know the personnel of ND knows real well the difference between news and opinions, so the motives for keeping up with this practice are obviously those of participating in the defamation and disinformation campaign against whatever the sandinistas do. They will always find the proverbial pelo en la sopa.
As for all the stupid attacks your comment received, is just more bile spewed by a bunch of haters who think they are the only ones entitled to an opinion, and if yours does not coincide with theirs then you are a “brainwashed” leftist. I feel sorry for those that having the truth in front of them decide to look somewhere else.
You seem well connected, sayayuca. Perhaps you can tell us why the Ortega family, along with Roberto Rivas, are so rich? BMW.s, Mercedes Benzs, Porsches,private airplanes, and huge mansions here and in Costa Rica. No point in denying it, it is all proven fact. Where did all that money come from?
Or, Lucia, what about this one:
A. Einstein: ¿Por qué socialismo?
Primera Edición: En Monthly Review, Nueva York, mayo de 1949. Digitalización y Fuente: Unión de Juventudes Socialistas de Puerto Rico.
¿Debe quien no es un experto en cuestiones económicas y sociales opinar sobre el socialismo? Por una serie de razones creo que sí.
Permítasenos primero considerar la cuestión desde el punto de vista del conocimiento científico. Puede parecer que no hay diferencias metodológicas esenciales entre la astronomía y la economía: los científicos en ambos campos procuran descubrir leyes de aceptabilidad general para un grupo circunscrito de fenómenos para hacer la interconexión de estos fenómenos tan claramente comprensible como sea posible. Pero en realidad estas diferencias metodológicas existen. El descubrimiento de leyes generales en el campo de la economía es difícil porque la observación de fenómenos económicos es afectada a menudo por muchos factores que son difícilmente evaluables por separado. Además, la experiencia que se ha acumulado desde el principio del llamado período civilizado de la historia humana –como es bien sabido– ha sido influida y limitada en gran parte por causas que no son de ninguna manera exclusivamente económicas en su origen. Por ejemplo, la mayoría de los grandes estados de la historia debieron su existencia a la conquista. Los pueblos conquistadores se establecieron, legal y económicamente, como la clase privilegiada del país conquistado. Se aseguraron para sí mismos el monopolio de la propiedad de la tierra y designaron un sacerdocio de entre sus propias filas. Los sacerdotes, con el control de la educación, hicieron de la división de la sociedad en clases una institución permanente y crearon un sistema de valores por el cual la gente estaba a partir de entonces, en gran medida de forma inconsciente, dirigida en su comportamiento social.
Pero la tradición histórica es, como se dice, de ayer; en ninguna parte hemos superado realmente lo que Thorstein Veblen llamó “la fase depredadora” del desarrollo humano. Los hechos económicos observables pertenecen a esa fase e incluso las leyes que podemos derivar de ellos no son aplicables a otras fases. Puesto que el verdadero propósito del socialismo es precisamente superar y avanzar más allá de la fase depredadora del desarrollo humano, la ciencia económica en su estado actual puede arrojar poca luz sobre la sociedad socialista del futuro.
En segundo lugar, el socialismo está guiado hacia un fin ético-social. La ciencia, sin embargo, no puede establecer fines e, incluso menos, inculcarlos en los seres humanos; la ciencia puede proveer los medios con los que lograr ciertos fines. Pero los fines por sí mismos son concebidos por personas con altos ideales éticos y –si estos fines no son endebles, sino vitales y vigorosos– son adoptados y llevados adelante por muchos seres humanos quienes, de forma semi-inconsciente, determinan la evolución lenta de la sociedad.
Por estas razones, no debemos sobrestimar la ciencia y los métodos científicos cuando se trata de problemas humanos; y no debemos asumir que los expertos son los únicos que tienen derecho a expresarse en las cuestiones que afectan a la organización de la sociedad. Muchas voces han afirmado desde hace tiempo que la sociedad humana está pasando por una crisis, que su estabilidad ha sido gravemente dañada. Es característico de tal situación que los individuos se sienten indiferentes o incluso hostiles hacia el grupo, pequeño o grande, al que pertenecen. Como ilustración, déjenme recordar aquí una experiencia personal. Discutí recientemente con un hombre inteligente y bien dispuesto la amenaza de otra guerra, que en mi opinión pondría en peligro seriamente la existencia de la humanidad, y subrayé que solamente una organización supranacional ofrecería protección frente a ese peligro. Frente a eso mi visitante, muy calmado y tranquilo, me dijo: “¿por qué se opone usted tan profundamente a la desaparición de la raza humana?”
Estoy seguro que hace tan sólo un siglo nadie habría hecho tan ligeramente una declaración de esta clase. Es la declaración de un hombre que se ha esforzado inútilmente en lograr un equilibrio interior y que tiene más o menos perdida la esperanza de conseguirlo. Es la expresión de la soledad dolorosa y del aislamiento que mucha gente está sufriendo en la actualidad. ¿Cuál es la causa? ¿Hay una salida?
Es fácil plantear estas preguntas, pero difícil contestarlas con seguridad. Debo intentarlo, sin embargo, lo mejor que pueda, aunque soy muy consciente del hecho de que nuestros sentimientos y esfuerzos son a menudo contradictorios y obscuros y que no pueden expresarse en fórmulas fáciles y simples.
El hombre es, a la vez, un ser solitario y un ser social. Como ser solitario, procura proteger su propia existencia y la de los que estén más cercanos a él, para satisfacer sus deseos personales, y para desarrollar sus capacidades naturales. Como ser social, intenta ganar el reconocimiento y el afecto de sus compañeros humanos, para compartir sus placeres, para confortarlos en sus dolores, y para mejorar sus condiciones de vida. Solamente la existencia de estos diferentes, y frecuentemente contradictorios objetivos por el carácter especial del hombre, y su combinación específica determina el grado con el cual un individuo puede alcanzar un equilibrio interno y puede contribuir al bienestar de la sociedad. Es muy posible que la fuerza relativa de estas dos pulsiones esté, en lo fundamental, fijada hereditariamente. Pero la personalidad que finalmente emerge está determinada en gran parte por el ambiente en el cual un hombre se encuentra durante su desarrollo, por la estructura de la sociedad en la que crece, por la tradición de esa sociedad, y por su valoración de los tipos particulares de comportamiento. El concepto abstracto “sociedad” significa para el ser humano individual la suma total de sus relaciones directas e indirectas con sus contemporáneos y con todas las personas de generaciones anteriores. El individuo puede pensar, sentirse, esforzarse, y trabajar por sí mismo; pero él depende tanto de la sociedad -en su existencia física, intelectual, y emocional- que es imposible concebirlo, o entenderlo, fuera del marco de la sociedad. Es la “sociedad” la que provee al hombre de alimento, hogar, herramientas de trabajo, lenguaje, formas de pensamiento, y la mayoría del contenido de su pensamiento; su vida es posible por el trabajo y las realizaciones de los muchos millones en el pasado y en el presente que se ocultan detrás de la pequeña palabra “sociedad”.
Es evidente, por lo tanto, que la dependencia del individuo de la sociedad es un hecho que no puede ser suprimido — exactamente como en el caso de las hormigas y de las abejas. Sin embargo, mientras que la vida de las hormigas y de las abejas está fijada con rigidez en el más pequeño detalle, los instintos hereditarios, el patrón social y las correlaciones de los seres humanos son muy susceptibles de cambio. La memoria, la capacidad de hacer combinaciones, el regalo de la comunicación oral ha hecho posible progresos entre los seres humanos que son dictados por necesidades biológicas. Tales progresos se manifiestan en tradiciones, instituciones, y organizaciones; en la literatura; en las realizaciones científicas e ingenieriles; en las obras de arte. Esto explica que, en cierto sentido, el hombre puede influir en su vida y que puede jugar un papel en este proceso el pensamiento consciente y los deseos.
El hombre adquiere en el nacimiento, de forma hereditaria, una constitución biológica que debemos considerar fija e inalterable, incluyendo los impulsos naturales que son característicos de la especie humana. Además, durante su vida, adquiere una constitución cultural que adopta de la sociedad con la comunicación y a través de muchas otras clases de influencia. Es esta constitución cultural la que, con el paso del tiempo, puede cambiar y la que determina en un grado muy importante la relación entre el individuo y la sociedad como la antropología moderna nos ha enseñado, con la investigación comparativa de las llamadas culturas primitivas, que el comportamiento social de seres humanos puede diferenciar grandemente, dependiendo de patrones culturales que prevalecen y de los tipos de organización que predominan en la sociedad. Es en esto en lo que los que se están esforzando en mejorar la suerte del hombre pueden basar sus esperanzas: los seres humanos no están condenados, por su constitución biológica, a aniquilarse o a estar a la merced de un destino cruel, infligido por ellos mismos.
Si nos preguntamos cómo la estructura de la sociedad y de la actitud cultural del hombre deben ser cambiadas para hacer la vida humana tan satisfactoria como sea posible, debemos ser constantemente conscientes del hecho de que hay ciertas condiciones que no podemos modificar. Como mencioné antes, la naturaleza biológica del hombre es, para todos los efectos prácticos, inmodificable. Además, los progresos tecnológicos y demográficos de los últimos siglos han creado condiciones que están aquí para quedarse. En poblaciones relativamente densas asentadas con bienes que son imprescindibles para su existencia continuada, una división del trabajo extrema y un aparato altamente productivo son absolutamente necesarios. Los tiempos — que, mirando hacia atrás, parecen tan idílicos — en los que individuos o grupos relativamente pequeños podían ser totalmente autosuficientes se han ido para siempre. Es sólo una leve exageración decir que la humanidad ahora constituye incluso una comunidad planetaria de producción y consumo.
Ahora he alcanzado el punto donde puedo indicar brevemente lo que para mí constituye la esencia de la crisis de nuestro tiempo. Se refiere a la relación del individuo con la sociedad. El individuo es más consciente que nunca de su dependencia de sociedad. Pero él no ve la dependencia como un hecho positivo, como un lazo orgánico, como una fuerza protectora, sino como algo que amenaza sus derechos naturales, o incluso su existencia económica. Por otra parte, su posición en la sociedad es tal que sus pulsiones egoístas se están acentuando constantemente, mientras que sus pulsiones sociales, que son por naturaleza más débiles, se deterioran progresivamente. Todos los seres humanos, cualquiera que sea su posición en la sociedad, están sufriendo este proceso de deterioro. Los presos a sabiendas de su propio egoísmo, se sienten inseguros, solos, y privados del disfrute ingenuo, simple, y sencillo de la vida. El hombre sólo puede encontrar sentido a su vida, corta y arriesgada como es, dedicándose a la sociedad.
La anarquía económica de la sociedad capitalista tal como existe hoy es, en mi opinión, la verdadera fuente del mal. Vemos ante nosotros a una comunidad enorme de productores que se están esforzando incesantemente privándose de los frutos de su trabajo colectivo — no por la fuerza, sino en general en conformidad fiel con reglas legalmente establecidas. A este respecto, es importante señalar que los medios de producción –es decir, la capacidad productiva entera que es necesaria para producir bienes de consumo tanto como capital adicional– puede legalmente ser, y en su mayor parte es, propiedad privada de particulares.
En aras de la simplicidad, en la discusión que sigue llamaré “trabajadores” a todos los que no compartan la propiedad de los medios de producción — aunque esto no corresponda al uso habitual del término. Los propietarios de los medios de producción están en posición de comprar la fuerza de trabajo del trabajador. Usando los medios de producción, el trabajador produce nuevos bienes que se convierten en propiedad del capitalista. El punto esencial en este proceso es la relación entre lo que produce el trabajador y lo que le es pagado, ambos medidos en valor real. En cuanto que el contrato de trabajo es “libre”, lo que el trabajador recibe está determinado no por el valor real de los bienes que produce, sino por sus necesidades mínimas y por la demanda de los capitalistas de fuerza de trabajo en relación con el número de trabajadores compitiendo por trabajar. Es importante entender que incluso en teoría el salario del trabajador no está determinado por el valor de su producto.
El capital privado tiende a concentrarse en pocas manos, en parte debido a la competencia entre los capitalistas, y en parte porque el desarrollo tecnológico y el aumento de la división del trabajo animan la formación de unidades de producción más grandes a expensas de las más pequeñas. El resultado de este proceso es una oligarquía del capital privado cuyo enorme poder no se puede controlar con eficacia incluso en una sociedad organizada políticamente de forma democrática. Esto es así porque los miembros de los cuerpos legislativos son seleccionados por los partidos políticos, financiados en gran parte o influidos de otra manera por los capitalistas privados quienes, para todos los propósitos prácticos, separan al electorado de la legislatura. La consecuencia es que los representantes del pueblo de hecho no protegen suficientemente los intereses de los grupos no privilegiados de la población. Por otra parte, bajo las condiciones existentes, los capitalistas privados inevitablemente controlan, directa o indirectamente, las fuentes principales de información (prensa, radio, educación). Es así extremadamente difícil, y de hecho en la mayoría de los casos absolutamente imposible, para el ciudadano individual obtener conclusiones objetivas y hacer un uso inteligente de sus derechos políticos.
La situación que prevalece en una economía basada en la propiedad privada del capital está así caracterizada en lo principal: primero, los medios de la producción (capital) son poseídos de forma privada y los propietarios disponen de ellos como lo consideran oportuno; en segundo lugar, el contrato de trabajo es libre. Por supuesto, no existe una sociedad capitalista pura en este sentido. En particular, debe notarse que los trabajadores, a través de luchas políticas largas y amargas, han tenido éxito en asegurar una forma algo mejorada de “contrato de trabajo libre” para ciertas categorías de trabajadores. Pero tomada en su conjunto, la economía actual no se diferencia mucho de capitalismo “puro”. La producción está orientada hacia el beneficio, no hacia el uso. No está garantizado que todos los que tienen capacidad y quieran trabajar puedan encontrar empleo; existe casi siempre un “ejército de parados”.
El trabajador está constantemente atemorizado con perder su trabajo. Desde que parados y trabajadores mal pagados no proporcionan un mercado rentable, la producción de los bienes de consumo está restringida, y la consecuencia es una gran privación. El progreso tecnológico produce con frecuencia más desempleo en vez de facilitar la carga del trabajo para todos. La motivación del beneficio, conjuntamente con la competencia entre capitalistas, es responsable de una inestabilidad en la acumulación y en la utilización del capital que conduce a depresiones cada vez más severas. La competencia ilimitada conduce a un desperdicio enorme de trabajo, y a ése amputar la conciencia social de los individuos que mencioné antes.
Considero esta mutilación de los individuos el peor mal del capitalismo. Nuestro sistema educativo entero sufre de este mal. Se inculca una actitud competitiva exagerada al estudiante, que es entrenado para adorar el éxito codicioso como preparación para su carrera futura.
Estoy convencido de que hay solamente un camino para eliminar estos graves males, el establecimiento de una economía socialista, acompañado por un sistema educativo orientado hacia metas sociales. En una economía así, los medios de producción son poseídos por la sociedad y utilizados de una forma planificada. Una economía planificada que ajuste la producción a las necesidades de la comunidad, distribuiría el trabajo a realizar entre todos los capacitados para trabajar y garantizaría un sustento a cada hombre, mujer, y niño. La educación del individuo, además de promover sus propias capacidades naturales, procuraría desarrollar en él un sentido de la responsabilidad para sus compañeros-hombres en lugar de la glorificación del poder y del éxito que se da en nuestra sociedad actual.
Sin embargo, es necesario recordar que una economía planificada no es todavía socialismo. Una economía planificada puede estar acompañada de la completa esclavitud del individuo. La realización del socialismo requiere solucionar algunos problemas sociopolíticos extremadamente difíciles: ¿cómo es posible, con una centralización de gran envergadura del poder político y económico, evitar que la burocracia llegue a ser todopoderosa y arrogante? ¿Cómo pueden estar protegidos los derechos del individuo y cómo asegurar un contrapeso democrático al poder de la burocracia?
My last one for Lucia, today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qDtUn5HSMc&feature=related
It is unclear to me whether Tim Rogers’ lead article “Ortega Says it All at Inauguration” is to be considered an Editorial or a reporter’s coverage of an event; if the latter, I agree it should not contain the reporter’s opinions.
Richard Abrams, M.D.
Granada, Nicaragua
You live here, Richard. You know exactly what the Ortegas are. You dont need Tim”s opinion.
Well said Richard. Is this fair and balanced news reporting or an opinion piece. It reads like the latter and thus should not be delivered as “news”.
First of all we all, we are ALL biased by our own life experiences, however, the point of view expressed by this news outlet (Nicaraguan Dispatch) is one that is shared by the majority of the Nicaraguans. I have a problem with foreigners thinking they know best, when they have no clue what it is really like for us Nicaraguans living in this new regime.
Second, thank you Gerardo for the interesting articles and opinions expressed, for the record I certainly don’t think that this “government” practices socialism, that would be idiotic, but I do fear that outsiders who are sympathetic to this government somehow believe in the huge load of excrement that this regime feeds the media, things such as “solidarity, socialism, reconciliation”.
Outsiders, mainly left wing idealist socialist, hear the story of a tyranny of the Somoza family overthrown by “las muchachos Sandinistas” a young group of socialist heroes… Unfortunately, that is old news, yesterdays rebels became today’s dictators, oppressing all those who dare have a different point of view, using fear tactics, intimidation, violence and money to bribe their way into perpetual power. – sounds familiar?
People who are sympathetic with this government and are Nicaraguans or of Nicaraguan decent usually fall into the next categories:
1) No moral leeches who benefit greatly $$ and directly from the Alba money / business and connections and do not give a rat’s a$$ about this country nor its people
2) People who are happy enough to receive small change $ from the Ortegas (they live in a confiscated /stolen house, they were given a job as a political favor, young adults whose family has greatly benefited from this “small change” and who owe a great deal of their financial standing to the Ortega’s, and again do not give a crap about this country nor its people –extremely selfish.
4) Poor people living in urban areas, that have little or no education, are machiavellic by nurture, believing that lying, cheating and stealing is the proper and smart way to go to get ahead in life, and want power. A.k.a, all the Cpcs, bus drivers, political organizers, too many examples out there. Mind you they are a true minority but a very loud visible one.
3) Really, really poor uneducated people, living below the poverty line, completely apathetic to any political views and only willing to vote for whomever gives them any crumbs (chickens, pigs, etc), and only voting because the party practically obligates them to do so, in order to receive their measly crumbs.
Any thinking, educated Nicaraguan with morals, values, love for their country and whose financial standing is not dependent in the past, present or future on the Ortega´s will and do not stand for their corruption, their lies and all the bloodshed they have brought upon our impoverished nation. It is as simple as that!
As for all of those who are not from Nicaragua and are Sandinista/Ortegista sympathizers, you are so so miss informed! I urge you to step outside of our little group of sandinista friends, feeding you lies and get in touch with reality, with what most of the Nicaraguans feel, and again to walk a mile in our shoes… in which we have a government that preaches peace, love and reconciliation, yet orders you to be stoned to death for simply expressing a difference of opinion.
Let´s not forget the many lives that were taken in the after match of the fraudulent electoral process this past November. Two innocent men were brutally murdered by this government of peace and love.
Ohh the irony! Pobre Nicaragua, Nicaraguita!
“Any thinking, educated Nicaraguan with morals, values, love for their country and whose financial standing is not dependent in the past, present or future on the Ortega´s will and do not stand for their corruption, their lies and all the bloodshed they have brought upon our impoverished nation. It is as simple as that!”
That is one of the most stupid comments ever written in this place.
I’m an educated Nicaraguan that love my country, have moral values and whose financial standig does not depend at all of Daniel Ortega or anybody from the FSLN for that matter; and I support the effort the sandinistas are doing to bring Nicaragua out of the misery and the under-development that people who think just like you had put it on. Don’t come here believing that you own the absolute truth about anything and everything. Accept other people rights to differ from you and you will live a better life, free of all that poison that is burning you inside.
You are bought and paid for by the new Somoza family, the Ortegas. You are clearly a man with no character.
Another “know it all”, you don’t even know who you’re talking to. You don’t know me as much as I don’t know you, but I don’t accuse you on a personal level of anything. If it hurts you to hear or read opinions opposed to yours you should stay away of open forums like this.
Your support of Daniel and Rosario tells me all I need to know about you. During the Revolution, Daniel spent much of his time living comfortably in Costa Rica sexually abusing his 11 yr, old stepdaughter. And now this pervert is your hero? What else do I need to know about you, sayayuca?
“the point of view expressed by this news outlet (Nicaraguan Dispatch) is one that is shared by the majority of the Nicaraguans”
What a bizarre statement to make. Particularly when you take into account the election result and opinion polls before it. Are you, by any chance, Lucia Newman – former CNN and presenter of the one-sided pro-MRS documentary Al Jazeera documentary?
Aqui (expropiar tierras frente a Galerias en Managua) si tiene razon el gobierno ya que por mas que digan que “era” de Somoza como si eso le diera propiedad y no. Si era de Somoza era 99% de los casos robada ya sea a los Alemanes,Ingleses o todos aquellos a quienes los USA les declaro la guerra cuando Pearl Harbor. mas algunos otros. Aqui van la Cementera,Montelimar,etc,etc. Que comience si la “Empresa Privada” a entender con quien estan tratando, que bien!
Dear Sayayuca, what is your real name? Seriously let’s find out who you REALLY are?
We’ll do a little digging and we will find that you actually do somehow benefit from the Ortega regime, this is true without a doubt.
We refuse to believe that you are a blind person or not very smart person, clearly you have benefited, or are benefitting from this regime, please be honest with yourself, no one will every buy that b.s.
If you ever were a true Sandinista, you would NEVER stand for what Ortega has done. If you believe in the ideals of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro who died trying to defend democracy and his right to elect a president without the elections being stolen like the Somoza’s did and now Daniel.
What about Carlos Fonseca, he truly believed that no president should run for more than two turns and certainly not to consecutive terms, they vowed to never let this happen in the name of democracy.
Even Sandino himself would not agree with the Ortegas, seriously how can you stand for this new tyranny that has clearly violated the constitution and stolen the elections?
Daniel loves to use the word “injerencismo” meaning other foreign governments “meddling” with our internal politics. This can be taken straight out of Sandino’s beliefs, but the funny thing is that according to Daniel it is only meddling when it comes from people he doesn’t like (USA, European Union), but according to Daniel it isn’t Chavez constant opinions and advising meddling.
How hypocritical of him. Can you a least see the reasoning behind this argument. If you follow it using logic and reason you will see that it is true.
Perhaps you are a young naive person who only beliefs in what your parents tell you, but examine where your parents money comes from, why do they still support a corrupt regime. Maybe they believed in it once upon a time, but it has since been corrupted, water-down and become a mere ghost of what it was, and a excuse to conglomerate power. It has become the very thing it set out to destroy.
The Sandinista movement started with the right ideals, but became greatly corrupted by greed, if you cannot see that, then you are clearly and absolutely biased and blind dear fellow Nicaraguan.
I hope one day you’ll open your eyes see things as they clearly are, without those silly red and black glasses under which your world looks completely different than it really is. Wake up and smell the lovely Nicaraguan coffee!
One day and and I hope soon, you’ll join us. Don´t be part of the herd, stop and think for yourself.
It’s funny how you believe to know what you’re talking about.
I give you one thing, I did benefited from the sandinistas back in the 70′s and all thru the 80′s. In those years I benefited in the way that I learned a lot about sacrifice without ever expecting to receive anything in return. I never occupied any high position neither in the FSLN nor the sandinista government, and that is still true to this day. I was if you want to call it that way, a foot soldier, I still am and proud of it. I learned that in our history as a nation only the true sandinistas have fought to improve the life of the poor and done something real about it. I learned that there were many false sandinistas, and that today they are on the side of the ones that have kept Nicaragua down, they call themselves “renovadores”. By what you wrote here, you sound like one of them or the daughter of one of them.
By the way, I’m a man over 50 years old and have seem a lot in my days. I make a living of my own hard work unrelated to any political party or government and the only reason I read ND and write comments here is to attempt to keep them straight, fair and balanced (new Fox News version?) like they claim to be. I accept I’m a complete failure at that.
Alas, so you openly admit that you do benefit, but instead of telling us what that means in monetary terms you decide to paint yourself in a nicer light a tell a sappy story. You will probably never be 100% honest on what you received or are still receiving.
I am not any renovador, orteguista, liberal or conservative; all of these parties have let us down one way or another. I am an independent, if you will, unlike yourself; I have no emotional or irrational attachments to any political cause, and much less to a lost corrupted cause now known as Orteguismo.
But, you can never discuss with a fanatic, it’s like trying to talk to a fanatical football fan or religious sect member, so I know all my words will be lost to deaf ears. I would like you to answer the following for me and any other independent that might be reading this:
1. What would the founding fathers of the Sandinismo have thought of Ortega him is thirst of perpetual power. Would they agree or disagree, please state why you believe this to be true?
I have a great video for you reminding you of the Sandinista ideals in case you may have already forgotten since that was such a long time ago for you:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCtYK7Zytxo
2. Why should one person be in power perpetually, I mean there has got to be smarter, more eloquent and charismatic leader within our party no?
3. Is Ortega really the best representation of who you are, as Sandinistas? Ortega a non-eloquent man accused of raping his own step daughter and of committing acts of genocide (miskitos-navidad roja).
4. Why not pick someone new instead of violating our beloved constitution and why are many of the Orteguista followers already claiming that his step son Payo Ortega would be his successor? Isn’t that a dictatorship?
5. In recent history, anyone with charisma within the party has been murdered (and at best all died in mysterious ways, a.k.a Guadamuz, Herty, Alexis Arguello). What does this say about the quality of people and how open they are two opposing points of view?
6. When you criticize this news outlet (Nicaraguan Dispatch) for expressing one-sided points of view and being some sort of Fox News, how do you explain channel 4? (and 6,8,10, etc)
I’d like to hear rational arguments to all of my questions by a true Orteguista like yourself, seriously I’m interested in our rational, fair and unbiased explanations Sir… please elaborate, we are all waiting…
I see that no matter how many times I tell you I do not benefit monetarily for any present or past sandinista government, you still decide to believe what you assume is the truth, And you have the courage to call me a fanatic?
But anyway, here we go:
1- The only living FSLN founder is Tomas Borge and he supports Daniel Ortega. Save your video, I have an excellent memory and WILL NEVER forget something as important to me like the sandinista ideals.
2- To call three terms in office (including a 16 year hiatus) is staying “perpetually in power” is either a complete lack of time sense or a complete lack of knowledge in european history in the last 30-40 years (do you know how many years was Willy Brandt at the helm of the german government, or Francois Mitterand in France or Felipe gonzalez in Spain, to name just a few?)
3- There is no doubt that in the FSLN are many people more intelligent and academically prepared than Daniel Ortega, but none has his experience and is more able to communicate with the Nicaraguan people. I’m not going to even touch your accusations of a judicial nature, since that is a work for the courts.
4- The day will come when the FSLN will bring out a new leader of the thousands of young people that today participate in the new tasks in this new period of sandinista government.
5- If you or anybody has any proof tha Alexis was murdered, why don’t you publish them? The same applies to all the other ones you claim were murdered.
6- The media you make reference to, does not hide the fact that they are sandinistas, they’re not covering themselves with the mantle of “independent, fair and balanced” bs. They are open and honest about where their preferences are.
Now, if a son is succeeding his father in power is a dictatorship, then go tell that to the Brits, the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Danish.That my dear Lucia is called a monarchy.
What you state in your comments in nothing but rumors and hearsay, baseless and twisted to fit your false “independent” ideology. If you want to lie to yourself fine, but don’t expect anybody else to believe it, you have of independent what I have of Martian.
I listened through Daniel’s acceptance speech, and I gotta say, this article does a spectacular job of recapitulating it, if not in an entirely more entertaining way. This is good stuff!
These are peaceful times for Nicaragua. We are blessed to have it that way. We don’t have to worry about sending our young men to war to fight for oil corporations nor do we have to worry about the high amount of drug abuse found rampant in other countries. We have many problems to improve upon, yet, our young people don’t have to worry about bloodshed and families being slaughtered. This is a great gift. Bless you all who continue to love this country and who brought our people and this beautiful country to this time of peace.
[...] who skipped Ortega’s inauguration last January, said he “felt at home” back in Nicaragua, where he spent “the best two years of my life” [...]
[...] who skipped Ortega’s inauguration last January, said he “felt at home” back in Nicaragua, where he spent “the best two years of my life” [...]