Snob

Llevábamos muchos meses soñando con el calor. Llevábamos muchos meses deseando que llegase el verano. Pues ya está aquí y ahora que el mes de julio ha comenzado, sentimos la necesidad de hidratarnos con recetas frescas y sabrosas entre las que destaca indudablemente el gazpacho andaluz. Para que siempre te salga perfecto, hoy te daremos todas las claves. Podemos asegurarte que este verano dominarás el gazpacho con estos siete trucos imprescindibles.

Cada verano estamos deseando hacer nuestras recetas de gazpacho más sabrosas, con la textura perfecta y con ese sabor andaluz inconfundible que hace de esta sopa fría un delicioso entrante, ya lo tomemos en un tazón o en un vaso de chupito. Hoy te contamos todas las claves para conseguir un gazpacho perfecto de punto y textura, si bien la receta a utilizar puede ser la que te proponemos o la que tú prefieras. Con un toque frutal, con sabor intenso, en textura más clara o espesa... vamos, a tu gusto.

Siete trucos para que tu gazpacho quede perfecto

• Usa siempre tomates maduros ya que dan más color y sabor a tu receta de gazpacho andaluz.
• Utiliza aceite de oliva virgen extra de la variedad que más te guste, aunque te recomiendo picual, hojiblanca o manzanilla, variedades andaluzas que le van muy bien a esta sopa fría.
• Puedes hacer el gazpacho sin preocuparte de pelar los tomates ni quitarles las pepitas si después de hacerlo lo pasas por un colador fino para quedarte con la textura de sopa fría más fina. Así ahorras tiempo.
• Cuando tritures el pan, los tomates y el resto de hortalizas, no añadas el aceite para no provocar la emulsión -a diferencia de como hacemos en la receta del salmorejo- aquí buscamos un aliño. Una vez triturado todo, agrega el aceite y el vinagre y remueve poco a poco.

• Atrévete a preparar otros gazpachos con toques de fruta como el de sandía, el de sandía, el de fresas o el de cerezas. Ese toque especial de sabor afrutado en tus gazpachos te encantará y los niños se acostumbrarán a las sopas frías con facilidad.
• Puedes conseguir un gazpacho de sabor intenso con un toque extra de potencia con este truco que requiere pasar por la plancha algunos ingredientes para caramelizar su superficie.
• No olvides los toppings habituales para decorar el gazpacho: elige picatostes y trocitos de cebolla, tomate y pimiento muy picados que se presentan como guarnición y cada uno se sirve en su taza.

Cazando gangas para los muy gazpacheros

• Si quieres algo básico a buen precio, puedes optar por una batidora de mano con accesorios, que incluya el vaso batidor para hacer gazpacho. Hay muchas opciones pero hemos encontrado esta oferta de Braun en El Corte Inglés que viene con varillas, vaso medidor y vaso picador grande qeue sale por menos de 70 euros.

• En El Corte Inglés hemos encontrado esta Batidora Blend Active Pro de Breville, ideal por su pequeño tamaño y bajo precio que nos permite llevarnos el gazpacho preparado listo para beber en un cómodo recipiente que incluso podemos llevar en el coche. Y está ahora a menos de 50 euros.

• Para cantidades más habituales para una familia, lo ideal es utilizar una turmix o batidora de vaso de gran tamaño. En Amazon hemos encontrado esta batidora de gran potencia de Bosch por menos de 95 euros con un descuento del 39%

• Si prefieres el modelo Versa de Oster que como se ve en la foto también es práctico para hacer batidos de frutas y smoothies, puedes encontrarlo en Amazon al precio de 269 euros, con el descuento. Es tan potente que también pica hielo.

• Si te gustan los modelos clásicos, estás de suerte porque tienes una gran oportunidad para adquirir la Oster Clásica en El Corte Inglés, que con sus tres velocidades tiene un precio de solo 75 euros.

• Otra opción es aprovechar la temporada de gazpachos para adquirir un robot de cocina con el que cocinarás todo el año, tanto los gazpachos salmorejos y otras sopas frías, como muchos otros platos calientes. En Amazon tienes la Cuisine Companion de Moulinex con la que tus gazpachos quedarán perfectos, con una textura tan fina que no necesitarás ni colarlos.

• También puedes elegir otros robots de cocina multifunción para hacer todo tipo de platos, entre ellos, por supuesto el gazpacho. En ese caso puedes optar por la Mycook de Taurus, con un precio de 699 euros tras el descuento de 100 euros que tienen también en Amazon.

Con cualquiera de estos electrodomésticos, nuestros trucos para hacer gazpacho, buenos ingredientes y tu toque personal, el éxito del verano lo tienes prácticamente garantizado. Ahora solo falta que te pongas manos a la obra y alegres a los tuyos con esta estupenda sopa fría veraniega.

Imágenes | iStockPhoto/jultud | iStockPhoto/dana2000
En Directo al Paladar | ¿En qué se diferencian el gazpacho y el salmorejo?
En Directo al Paladar | Renovar las sartenes de casa en Cazando Gangas

También te recomendamos

Cómo combinar los colores de tu hogar para que el resultado sea de diez... y no de pesadilla

Truco de cocina: cómo hacer que tus gazpachos y salmorejos tengan un sabor más intenso

Trece platos que saben distinto cuando vas a la playa

-
La noticia Este verano dominarás el gazpacho: siete trucos imprescindibles fue publicada originalmente en Directo al Paladar por Pakus .

Some eminently hatable millennials in a Getty stock image

Millennials, we need to talk. Specifically, we need to talk about how we talk about millennials. For a while now, there's existed a genre of journalism that takes a few studies, bundles them together, and creates a ridiculously broad, generalized portrait of a generation. Millennials hate going out! Millennials hate free speech! Millennials are bored! Millennials aren't investing! If you want to sell furniture to millennials, boost your digital presence!

Every generation is inevitably reduced to a stereotype: The greatest generation wore hats, died on muddy beaches; baby boomers marched against the war while tripping on acid and listening to "Stop Children What's That Sound"; Generation X learned how to live and love while saving their beloved independent record store from demolition. Millennials, in the popular imagination, are all 25-year-old startup employees who complain about low pay in Medium posts, get fired for it, and subsequently go back on Medium to whine about the firing. They hoverboard around their open offices, drinking energy drinks, selfie-ing, refusing to fuck, monetizing their social media presence, pining for the imagined past of the 90s, drinking kale smoothies, whatever.

No one is exactly pumped to be a part of this picture, so props to 26-year-old occasional Game of Thrones recapper Johnny Oleksinski for handling this stereotype in the most millennial way possible: writing a screed about it online, in this case, for the New York Post.

Oleksinski's problems with his compatriots are the usual complaints, like their addiction to smartphones and emojis, their love for Bernie Sanders, their inability to socialize face-to-face, their tendency to blame others and praise themselves, the way they create online identities more interesting than their sad, shy IRL avatars.

Sure, those people sound awful, just as their alter egos sound brave—those millennials hamstrung by inequality and flat wages, handed a bag of shit by their personal-responsibility-preaching elders and left to grow up in the wake of 9/11 and the global financial crisis. Those poor orphans of circumstance, forced to change jobs all the time because there are so few good gigs; they retreat into online life as a refuge from their shitty offline existences; they follow Sanders around because he promises to lift them up the same way Donald Trump promises to lift old white people up.

There are, give or take, about 75 million millennials in America. That's a lot of messy human experience to pack into one thinkpiece. Millennials have gone off to wars they didn't understand and seen their legs get blown off. Millennials have been killed by the cops for no damn good reason, and other millennials have protested those deaths in the street while other millennials in police uniforms fired tear gas at them. Millennials have worked shitty jobs because the economy was busted, they've had the usual humdrum anxieties about the future, they've married one another and had kids and divorced and killed themselves and done too many drugs and got clean. Millennials have gotten rich because their YouTube channels or parody Twitter accounts got unimaginably popular. Millennials hop trains, get drunk, have bad opinions, lie to their girlfriends, listen to embarrassing music in their cars, date Tom Hiddleston as part of a complex web of celebrity publicity. Millennials, in other words, are being utterly unremarkable human beings.

When we tell stories about the differences between generations, we always rely on statistics that create trends. (Millennials are less religious! They're more risk-averse!) But it's never clear whether the numbers are indicative of actual shifts or mere aberrations. In any case, the point is the stories that we erect around these numbers.

A few years ago, it seemed like these stories were being written about millennials by others, the point being to explain the mysterious alien youngsters to the non-snapchatting adults. Now that millennials have aged into those cushy journalism jobs where you turn data into op-eds, we're thinkpiecing our peers.

Before Oleksinski, there was Alexis Boomer, a woman who a few months ago recorded a vlog from her car about how Kim Kardashian was bad and Tim Tebow was good and we all ought to apologize to our parents for being so shitty. Boomer's rant has a more overtly conservative edge to it, but Oleksinski hits some of the same notes: Hating millennials is a way to demonstrate your seriousness and your adultness while also nodding to a kind of nostalgia that's deeper than, say, me getting excited because the Replacements were reuniting.

"People like me are called 'old souls,' or '26-going-on-76,'" writes Oleksinski. "We're chided by our peers for silly things such as enjoying adulthood, commuting to a physical office and not being enamored with Brooklyn. Contentment has turned us into lepers. Or worse: functioning human beings."

Maybe Oleksinski gets shit from his friends for preferring Manhattan to Brooklyn, but the fact that Boomer's video scored more than 30 million views should tell you how hated the stereotypical (and largely fictitious) vision of millennials is. Or, fuck it, let's look at a poll: Pew found in September that millennials tended to describe their generation as "self-absorbed," "greedy," and "wasteful" rather than "moral," "patriotic," or "willing to sacrifice"; a majority rejected the "millennial" label entirely. Oleksinski says most people his age are garbage, and most people his age would happily concur.

So that's the latest millennial trend, after orgies and lying to your boss so you can go build a treehouse—hating other millennials with a passion, and feeling good about yourself for it. The fact that no one in the history of the world has ever been as awful as the millennials we imagine in our head doesn't deter us. Once you tell a story that many times, reality pales in comparison.

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.

With multiple legal cases underway in several jurisdictions, Kim Dotcom is undoubtedly a man with things on his mind.

In New Zealand, he’s fighting extradition to the United States. And in the United States he’s fighting a government that wants to bring him to justice on charges of copyright infringement, conspiracy, money laundering and racketeering.

After dramatically launching and then leaving his Mega file-hosting site following what appears to have been an acrimonious split, many believed that Dotcom had left the file-sharing space for good. But after a period of quiet, it now transpires that the lure of storing data has proven too much of a temptation for the businessman.

In a follow-up to previous criticism of his former company, earlier today Dotcom took another shot at Mega. That was quickly followed by a somewhat surprising announcement.

“A new site is in the making. 100gb free cloud storage,” Dotcom said.

Intrigued, TorrentFreak spoke with Dotcom to find out more. Was he really planning to launch another file-sharing platform?

“I can say that this year I have set things in motion and a new cloud storage site is currently under development,” Dotcom confirmed.

“I’m excited about the new innovations the site will contain.”

When pressed on specific features for the new platform, Dotcom said it was too early to go into details. However, we do know that the site will enable users to sync all of their devices and there will be no data transfer limits.

For the privacy-conscious, Dotcom also threw out another small bone, noting that the site will also feature on-the-fly encryption. Given the German’s attention to security in recent years, it wouldn’t be a surprise if additional features are added before launch.

“Eight years of knowledge and a long planning period went into this. It will be my best creation yet,” Dotcom told TF.

A potential launch date for the site hasn’t been confirmed but the Megaupload and Mega founder is currently teasing the hashtag #5thRaidAnniversary, suggesting that his new project will launch in January 2017, five years after the Megaupload raids.

Of course, we also asked Dotcom if he’d decided on a name for his new cloud-storage site. Typically he’s playing his cards close to his chest and leaving us to fill in the blanks, but he hinted that an old name with a big reputation might be making a comeback.

“The name of the new site will make people happy,” he told us.

TF will be getting a sneak peek at the site when it’s ready for launch but in the meantime, readers might be wondering what has happened to Dotcom’s censorship-resistant MegaNet project.

“Mobile networks and devices still have to catch up with my vision for MegaNet and it will probably not be before 2018 until a beta goes live,” Dotcom concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

With the penultimate season of Orphan Black at an end, it’s time to round off with a wrap-up post and take a look back at where we’ve been, what we’ve learned and where we might be headed in Season 5.

Let’s re-examine some of the highs and lows:

Highlight: The intertwined arc of Sarah Manning and Beth Childs

After this season, it’s hard to remember that Sarah and Beth never actually met. Season 4 brought us back to the moments leading up to where it all began, when Sarah Manning saw a woman who looked exactly like her step off a train platform to her death. We wound back the web to find that Beth had been investigating Neolution from the start. With Art’s help Sarah is able to piece together clues about Beth and her detective work that bring them closer to unraveling the Neolution mystery.

Sarah discovers a strong connection between herself and Beth, one that simultaneously haunts and encourages her via hallucinations. The scene in episode 7 where Sarah has a conversation with Beth on a bridge overlooking train tracks was one of the highlights of the season for me. Using the supernatural elements of the show to bring Beth into the picture was the perfect way to represent the concerning headspace Sarah was in. Beth was there because of the darkness inside Sarah’s head, but she was also the reason that Sarah was able to move on from that place, by encouraging Sarah that the rest of the clones needed her. As an audience we got a satisfying look into some significant scenes of the past, and found closure together with Sarah on Beth’s part of the story.

Lowlight: Felix’s Family

I want this to be a highlight, I really do. I was truly looking forward to this subplot, but the development just didn’t work for me. Felix is forever in Sarah’s shadow and this feature subplot looked like it might provide a way for him to break out of that shell and develop his own piece of story free from the clone web, but the writing brought Sarah back into the picture all too soon and even found a way to insert Felix’s birth-sister Adele into the main plotline by assigning her vague job description to Donnie’s prison case.

The whole point of Orphan Black‘s plot is that everything is connected and intertwined in one way or another, but Felix and Adele’s Geneconnexion connection appears to be more of a red herring than any real twist. And based on how Felix and Adele left things, it’s unclear whether or not she’ll make an appearance in Season 5. If she does, I hope her addition serves to strength Felix’s character and develop him further in his own right.

Highlight: New Clones

One of the best things about each new season of Orphan Black is the new and incredible ways Tatiana Maslany is able to broaden her acting repertoire and bless us with her inventive portrayal of another clone. We met Krystal Goderitch briefly before Season 4, but this time she was really allowed to shine and had some of the funniest and most memorable moments in the season, from getting a massage from Donnie to failing to believe the clone story, to inadvertently saving Delphine’s life in the parking lot with an obnoxious ringtone. As I mentioned at the beginning of the recap for Episode 5, I will forever be in awe of Maslany’s ability to make me believe she’s a completely different person. I noticed in the final episode that she even holds her lips differently to play Krystal. How does she do that? How?!

On the opposite end of the scale, the brand new addition to the Clone Club that Season 4 brought us was the Finnish-born hacker MK, a secretive contact of Beth’s who now passes her skills on to help Sarah, before betraying her in a sad twist of fate. Thankfully MK was on the way to redeeming herself by the season’s end, and we can only hope that Season 5 brings her closer to her sestras. MK clearly has a tragic past, having lost a clone sister with whom she was very close. Maslany graced us with a reserved and nuanced performance as the reclusive MK, who often kept her face hidden behind a sheep mask. Her mysterious aesthetic and expert tracking skills were a welcome highlight to the season.

Lowlight: Kira’s Creepy Child Syndrome

For the first half of the season, it seemed as if the show was trying to hint at Kira have some kind of superhuman ability that would manifest in some big way and be central to the major plot. Not so. And to be honest, I’m thankful for that. But I wish they had just left this out entirely. While Kira appears to have a strong connection to the other clones that appears to allow her to see, feel and hear things that the clones are experiencing whether she is near them or not, this ability has failed to contribute anything significant to the story so far, and has done nothing for her character except make the Creepy Child TV Trope applicable. Although I’m against this subplot given that it pushes the realism of Orphan Black a little too far into the supernatural for my tastes, I’m expecting to see some significant development and subsequent payoff in Season 5 — otherwise what was the point of including this at all?

Highlight: Helena at the Hendrixes

The three most hilarious characters under one roof, honestly what could be better? Helena living at the Hendrixes proved to be a glorious addition to this season, and her continued involvement in Alison and Donnie’s drug ring problems that began in Season 3 certainly made things go from bad to worse in the best ways possible. Alison and Helena are both polar opposites but equally iconic, and any interaction between them always proves to be amazing. Although Helena didn’t last long in the Hendrix home, we did get a brief reunion towards the end of the season where the tables were turned and Alison and Donnie found themselves living in Helena’s snow-covered forest shack. This is the kind of writing I live for.

My only lament is that of the three, I felt like Donnie was given the most focus this season and I much as I love him this isn’t his story. Alison’s development, while fairly true-to-character, was a little all over the shop and she got sidelined a couple of times where she could have been given a bigger role. However as expected Alison brought us some of the most incredible moments in the season to boot — Jesus Christ, Superstar, need I say more?

Highlight: Keeping Susan Duncan alive

There were multiple occasions, in both flashback and the present timeline, where Susan Duncan was almost murdered. But somehow, miraculously, she made it through this season alive. One of the most interesting things we got in Season 4 was the development of the complicated and at times extremely volatile relationship between Susan and her daughter Rachel Duncan. Not only that, but the back-and-forth ambiguous morality of both characters kept us guessing all season. I’m really glad we’ll get to see more of this in final instalment of the series.

Lowlight: Killing Evie Cho

As I mentioned in last week’s finale review, I completely understand why they went with this one. Logically it made sense and to get Rachel on top Evie Cho had to go. The loss here is that the subtle hints of backstory and character development we were just starting to get for her character have gone to waste. I felt like Evie Cho offered plenty more to work with and heading into Season 5 with her having to claw her way back into Neolution and battle it out in a three-way fight against Rachel and Susan would have been something. Sadly it’s not to be.

High and Lowlight: Cosima and Delphine’s Reunion

The ending of Season 4 was all cophine fans could have asked for, but my god did they stretch us thin over the other nine episodes to get there. By the time Cosima and Delphine were reunited, the emotion was there but the payoff just wasn’t as strong anymore. We lost the momentum and the reveals were left too long for us to feel anything but a bit of anti-climax. Season 3’s finale left us expecting a whodunit, but I can’t say the revelation that Detective Duko shot Delphine was much of a surprise. The saving grace to this storyline was Krystal’s involvement and her miraculous if entirely unintentional rescue operation.

The big high is that Delphine is alive and Cosima has her back, so Season 5 will be bringing us more cophine. And with Cosima allegedly cured, they might even make it to the end!!! Only time will tell. If we could wait a whole 9 episodes to see our beloved Delphine again, surely the months until Orphan Black Season 5 won’t be too bad???

My Biggest Questions for Season 5:

– Who is the mysterious messenger man? And what does the colony on the island where Delphine has been all along have to do with everything?

– Who is the man behind the curtain, Mr Westmoreland? And will he be pleased with Rachel leading Neolution?

– Will Kira do anything useful for the plot?

– Will the lesbians live????

– Will Tony make a return?

– What will Helena’s babies be like?

What about you guys? Questions, thoughts? Leave a comment below!

All images courtesy of BBC America. 

The post ORPHAN BLACK: Season 4 Wrap-Up appeared first on Fandom Following.

O castelo da Férveda case non existe. Hoxe só quedan foxos e muros cubertos dunha espesa vexetación. Pero esta fortaleza foi un dos puntos máis...

Por Xurxo Salgado

¿Quién nos viene a la mente cuando pensamos en líderes militares belicistas y de gatillo fácil? ¿George W. Bush? ¿Donald Rumsfeld? ¿Vladimir Putin? ¿Y qué me decís de Sir Winston Churchill, que inspiró la imagen de ese adorable y totalmente fiable perro parlante de los anuncios de TV de la compañía de seguros Churchill y que fue elegido Británico Más Destacado de Todos los Tiempos por el público de Gran Bretaña en una encuesta llevada a cabo por la BBC en 2002?

En la lista de políticos del siglo XX erróneamente reverenciados, Churchill se sitúa en el primer puesto. Para cuando la palmó en su casa de Londres a los 90 años de edad, Churchill se había convertido en muchas cosas: el Bulldog Británico, el primer ministro que "lanzó los botes salvavidas" que liberaron a Europa de Hitler, el Hombre del Medio Siglo según la revista Time y el inquebrantable líder en tiempos de guerra que ayudó a vencer a los nazis y aseguró el destino de la democracia liberal de la que Occidente disfruta en la actualidad.

Pero también fue el hombre que describió al pueblo indio como "gentes embrutecidas con una religión embrutecida", que arremetió contra los palestinos tachándolos de "hordas de bárbaros que se alimentan de excrementos de camello" y que en cierta ocasión afirmó sobre su adorado país: "Mantengamos una Inglaterra blanca es un buen eslogan".

Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, hijo de un Lord inglés y una aristócrata norteamericana, fue desde siempre un soldado de los pies a la cabeza. Tras licenciarse en la Real Academia Militar Sandhurst, no tardó en alistarse alegremente para participar en misiones en Bombay, Egipto y Sudán. En un discurso que pronunció ante los estudiantes de la Universidad de Bristol en 1929, describió su recorrido por el imperio colonial como "un revoloteo por el mundo experimentando una emocionante escena tras otra" en los tiempos en que "Inglaterra entabló un montón de alegres guerritas contra gentes bárbaras".

En términos actuales, hizo todo lo posible para hacerse famoso excepto difundir un vídeo sexual

Las declaraciones de este hombre hablaban por sí solas. Churchill sabía cómo elaborar una buena frase —y si no me crees, date una vuelta por BrainyQuote y lo verás—, pero es que, a fin de cuentas, era periodista. Cuando era joven se sentía insatisfecho por lo que cobraba en el ejército, de modo que decidió incrementar sus ingresos escribiendo sobre sus viajes como corresponsal de guerra en ciernes. Pero el modo en que reflejaba los hechos era de todo menos ejemplar. En Sudáfrica, donde el Ejército Británico construyó algunos de los primeros campos de concentración para internar a los civiles durante la Segunda Guerra Bóer, su valoración tras escribir desde allí fue que los campos eran responsables de un "sufrimiento relativamente mínimo" (se calcula que murieron 26.000 mujeres y niños en aquellos campos de concentración).

Cuando Churchill consiguió un escaño como Miembro del Parlamento, cobraba 10.000 libras (alrededor de 1,2 millones de € en dinero actual) por ofrecer conferencias a lo largo de Gran Bretaña y EE. UU. ¿Su principal fuente de inspiración? Él mismo. En el libro City Journal, el escritor e historiador Mark Riebling le llama la "Paris Hilton de la política británica": "Si viajaba por toda África con 17 maletas, todas ellas a juego, o si le atropellaba un coche al cruzar la Quinta Avenida de Nueva York, escribía sobre ello. Su vida fue algo así como un precedente de los realities de TV. En términos actuales, hizo todo lo posible para hacerse famoso excepto difundir un vídeo sexual".

Foto vía el usuario de Flickr d_pham

La indulgencia con que Churchill trataba su vida personal y sus debilidades no era un gesto que extendiera al resto de los mortales. De hecho, tenía una cosa en común con sus adversarios nazis de la Segunda Guerra Mundial: una entusiasta pasión por la eugenesia. Como Secretario de Interior en 1910, Churchill solicitó a las autoridades que consideraran la opción de esterilizar a las personas con enfermedades mentales y problemas de aprendizaje e impedir que contrajeran matrimonio. "La multiplicación de los débiles de mente es un peligro terrible para la raza", escribió en un memorándum dirigido al Primer Ministro aquel mismo año. Un año más tarde, habló en el Parlamento a favor de la introducción de campos de trabajos forzados para "deficientes mentales" y un año después de eso asistió a la primera Conferencia Internacional sobre Eugenesia en Londres.

Ya puedo oírte gritar, "¡Venga ya, aquello era el principio del siglo XX! Por aquel entonces, ¿quién no creía en podar ligeramente el árbol genético para preservar la raza superior?". Pero la pasión que sentía Churchill por la eugenesia era indicativa de una aversión mucho más profunda hacia cualquiera que no encajara con el ideal del alegre hombre blanco inglés que se despertaba con una taza de Twinnig's y colonizaba la India a tiempo para volver a cenar. Y aquello presentó ramificaciones letales en el resto del mundo.

Por ejemplo: el uso de armas químicas no se limitaba a Hitler o a dictadores como Saddam Hussein o Assad. De hecho, Churchill fue un temprano defensor del uso de gas venenoso para sofocar una revuelta protagonizada por kurdos y árabes en la Mesopotamia ocupada por los británicos, lo que actualmente es Irak. En una carta de 1920 dirigida a Sir Hugh Trenchard, miembro de la Real Fuerza Aérea, escribió: "Creo que debería usted proceder sin demora a iniciar los experimentos con bombas de gas, especialmente de gas mostaza, que supondrían un castigo para los recalcitrantes nativos sin infligirles lesiones graves". En otro memorándum gubernamental afirmaba: "Estoy completamente a favor del uso de gas venenoso contra las tribus incivilizadas", aunque los historiadores indican que se refería sobre todo al gas lacrimógeno y que no existen suficientes pruebas que demuestren que Gran Bretaña terminara por usar ningún tipo de arma química en Oriente Medio.

En la década de 1930, el parlamento del Reino Unido comenzó a sopesar la idea de conceder algún tipo de independencia a la India, la joya de su corona colonial. Churchill se opuso vehementemente e inició una prolongada campaña llena de odio que sorprendió a más de uno —incluso en aquella época— por rayar la antidemocracia y el totalitarismo. No es de extrañar que esta década se conozca como los "años salvajes" de Churchill, en los que fue expulsado de la élite política y en los que se consideraba de forma generalizada que vivía alejado sin remedio de la realidad de la India. Aunque Gandhi no era ningún santo, tampoco lo era Churchill, que declaró acerca del sufragio universal en la por entonces todavía colonia: "¿Por qué deberíamos implantar en este momento entre las razas iletradas de la India semejante tipo de sistema, cuyos inconvenientes se notan actualmente en las naciones más desarrolladas del mundo como Estados Unidos, Alemania, Francia y la mismísima Inglaterra?".

Churchill en 1895: un joven segundo lugarteniente que se enrolaba en "alegres guerritas contra gentes bárbaras". Foto vía Wikimedia Commons

Aunque Churchill acabó por suavizar su posición acerca de Gandhi, dejó bien claro cuál era su opinión sobre la impertinente cuestión colonial en una reunión política celebrada en 1931: "Resulta alarmante e incluso nauseabundo ver al Sr. Gandhi, un sedicioso abogado que pertenece al Middle Temple, posar ahora como un faquir y recorrer semidesnudo las escalinatas que conducen al Palacio Virreinal". John Charmley, el historiador que escribió Churchill: The End of Glory ("Churchill: el fin de la gloria"), dijo a la BBC que, incluso para los más conservadores —y no hablemos ya del Partido Liberal y el Partido Laborista—, las opiniones de Churchill en torno a la India entre 1929 y 1939 resultaban abominables".

No se trataba tan solo de una venganza personal contra Gandhi. Tal y como indica la académica Samar Attar, Churchill pensaba de ese modo acerca de básicamente cualquier grupo de indígenas que tratara de reclamar su propia tierra. Durante la Real Comisión Palestina —comúnmente conocida como Comisión Peel— celebrada en 1937, Churchill defendió el derecho de Gran Bretaña a decidir el destino de Palestina. "No admito... que se haya causado daño a los indios nativos de Norteamérica o a los negros de Australia. No admito que se haya causado ningún daño a esa gente por el hecho de que una raza más fuerte, una raza superior, una raza más sabia... haya llegado a su tierra y haya ocupado su lugar".

(Su agresión verbal se tradujo en la ligereza geopolítica con que se trazaron las fronteras entre los pueblos en disputa. Churchill gustaba de beber algún que otro trago mientras tomaba unas decisiones políticas que tuvieron implicaciones para Oriente Medio en las décadas siguientes. Por eso la irregular frontera entre Jordania y Arabia Saudí se conoce como el "Hipo Winston").

Incluso mientras Churchill se encontraba en medio de su gran batalla militar contra la Alemania nazi, seguía sin comportarse como el glorioso líder que hoy nos pretenden pintar. En 1943, una hambruna que provocó alrededor de tres millones de muertes azotó el estado de Bengala, en la India. Pero incluso después de que los oficiales británicos enviaran varios telegramas solicitando ayuda, Churchill no se conmovió. Su conclusión fue que aliviar el sufrimiento de aquella gente no les haría ningún bien y que era culpa de los indios por "reproducirse como conejos". Como anotó en sus diarios el secretario de estado británico en la India: "Yo... no podía evitar decirle que no veía demasiada diferencia entre su actitud y la de Hitler... No estoy en absoluto seguro de que esté del todo cuerdo en lo que se refiere a la cuestión de la India".

Pero, ¿qué hay de la auténtica guerra que sentó las bases de la reputación de Churchill como el más insigne líder de Gran Bretaña? Pues Churchill tampoco estaba libre de culpa en esta cuestión. El historiador Richard Overy afirma que no fue Hitler quien inició los bombardeos indiscriminados sobre las poblaciones civiles. De eso nada, fue Churchill quien dejó bien claro que ponía cero "objeciones, tanto de conciencia como legales" a los bombardeos una vez que sustituyó a Neville Chamberlain como Primer Ministro en 1940.

El historiador alemán Jörg Friedrich también ha descrito de forma controvertida los bombardeos de los Aliados sobre ciudades como Dresde, Hamburgo y Colonia como crímenes de Guerra por los que Churchill jamás fue juzgado. Friedrich afirma que la campaña de bombardeos acabó con la vida de más de 635.000 civiles, incluyendo alrededor de 75.000 niños, y que muchos de los bombardeos se llevaron a cabo en pequeñas poblaciones de muy poco valor estratégico. Y Friedrich no es el único que opina de este modo: el novelista alemán Günter Grass creía que tan solo los bombardeos sobre Dresden ya constituían un crimen de guerra.

¿Y qué hay del mismo Churchill? Aunque se encontraba en medio de la organización de una guerra, siempre estuvo pendiente de mantenerse a salvo. Cuando las bombas alemanas comenzaron a llover sobre Gran Bretaña durante los ataques, ordenó a sus secretarios privados que empaquetarán sus documentos oficiales para poder usarlos en la escritura de sus memorias. El libro resultante, La Segunda Guerra Mundial, batió todos los récords de ventas y le hizo ganar lo que en la actualidad equivaldría a unos 25 millones de euros.

yuke player originally appeared on MyConfinedSpace NSFW on July 5, 2016.

Benches in parks, train stations, bus shelters and other public places are meant to offer seating, but only for a limited duration. Many elements of such seats are subtly or overtly restrictive. Arm rests, for instance, indeed provide spaces to rest arms, but they also prevent people from lying down or sitting in anything but a prescribed position. This type of design strategy is sometimes classified as “hostile architecture,” or simply: “unpleasant design.”

Gordan Savičić and Selena Savić, co-editors of the book Unpleasant Design, are quick to point out that unpleasant designs are not failed designs, but rather successful ones in the sense that they deter certain activities by design. A bench which fails to be comfortable and flexible, for example, can still be a successful design … if the designer intends for it to be an uncomfortable place to spend long periods of time.

Unpleasant designs take many shapes, but they share a common goal of exerting some kind of social control in public or in publicly-accessible private spaces. They are intended to target, frustrate and deter people, particularly those who fall within unwanted demographics.

A number of such strategies are aimed loitering teens, and many of these are less physical or obvious than an uncomfortable bench. Some businesses play classical music as a deterrent, on the theory that kids don’t want to hang out or talk over it. Other sound-based strategies include the use of high-frequency sonic buzz generators meant to be audible only to young people. Housing estates in the UK have also put up pink lighting, aimed to highlight teenage blemishes. In many cases, there is little data to show how well these more unconventional strategies actually work.

At the other end of the spectrum, blue lighting has been used in public restrooms to deter intravenous drug users; the color makes it harder for people to locate their veins. Public street crime declined in Glasgow, Scotland following the installation of blue street lights, but it’s difficult to attribute this effect to the new lighting. Blue may have calming effects or may simply (in contrast to yellow) create an unusual atmosphere in which people are uncomfortable acting out. Though questions remain about causality versus correlation in this case, Tokyo, Japan has since piloted a similar blue-light program, hoping to reduce suicides in subway stations.

The use of lighting as a means of public control may be much older than these color-specific interventions. According to Selena Savić, when Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia the government installed unpleasantly bright street lamps in Višegrad. Their goal was to deter nighttime gatherings that could lead to resistance or rebellion. The locals, displeased with these lights, would break the lamps at night, and the government would reinstall them the next day. A similar phenomenon (of street lights as social control) dates back even further in Paris, France.

Today, we have since become so habituated to public lighting that our primary association with street lights is that they deter criminal activity and make us feel safe. Except for those who lament the lack of stars in the night sky or live in apartments next to a too-bright bulb, one might never consider the possibility that street lighting might be unpleasant. This is part of the point of the Unpleasant Design project and book: to bring these rarely-noticed phenomenon to light, so to speak.

While some examples are more invisible, or at least intangible, other hostile architectural interventions are more physical and overt. Concrete or metal spikes are used to keep people from urinating in dark city corners, while others are aimed at stopping people from sleeping on the streets.

One major problem of the spikes (and all the unpleasant designs that curb undesired behavior) is that, unlike interactions with security guards or police officers, these physical features are non-negotiable. Their permanence is definitive and uncompromising, baked into the built environment in a way that is hard to argue against or reverse.

Spikes aside, street furniture is one of the most common subjects of unpleasant design critiques. The limitations built into urban objects restrict activities, denying a potentially complex range of uses and interactions. Beyond dividers and armrests, some benches are mounted so high that a sitter’s feet will not reach the ground, making them uncomfortable after a short period. In other cases, shared seats are barely benches at all, just slim slats to stand and rest against.

Of all these bench designs, there is one masterpiece in particular that stands out from the crowd. The Camden Bench is a highly refined work of unpleasant design, impervious to essentially anything but sitting.

Designed by Factory Furniture, the Camden Bench is a strange, angular, sculpted, solid lump of concrete with rounded edges and slopes in unexpected places. Critic Frank Swain calls it the “perfect anti-object.”

The Camden Bench is virtually impossible to sleep on. It is anti-dealer and anti-litter because it features no slots or crevices in which to stash drugs or into which trash could slip. It is anti-theft because the recesses near the ground allow people to store bags behind their legs and away from would be criminals. It is anti-skateboard because the edges on the bench fluctuate in height to make grinding difficult. It is anti-graffiti because it has a special coating to repel paint.

Most of these goals seem noble, but the overall effect is somewhat demoralizing, and follows a potentially dangerous logic with respect to designing for public spaces. When design solutions address the symptoms of a problem (like sleeping outside in public) rather than the cause of the problem (like the myriad societal shortcomings that lead to homelessness), that problem is simply pushed down the street.

Spikes beget spikes, and targeted individuals are simply moved around … in much the same way that pigeon deterrents shuffle birds from block to block without reducing their overall numbers in a city.

Meanwhile, some guerrilla efforts have been made to fight back against unpleasant designs. Artist Sarah Ross, for instance, created a set of “archisuits” designed to work in and around specific deterrents. In one such suit, pads with gaps let the wearer sleep on segmented benches.

Softwalks has developed a series of attachable city seats and tables that clamp onto scaffolding and other urban posts or poles. Their modular on-demand street furniture is in part practical but also makes a statement about hostility and voids and built environments.

Whether handed down by the establishment or created in response to official interventions, there is always an aspect of coercion to design. Usability design, for instance, is used to get people to buy things and use their smartphones in certain ways, often without the user even being aware of it. Fundamentally, works of unpleasant design, hostile architecture and street furniture in general are no different.

The reason we need a critical theory of unpleasant design is so we can recognize the coercion that is taking place in our public spaces. We need to know when we are replacing human interaction, nuance and empathy with hard, physical and non-negotiable solutions.

Whether you think a certain form of design is exclusionary but serves a greater good, or believe it is just hostile and offensive, it is important to be aware of the decisions that are being made for you. Designs that are unpleasant to some are put into place to make things more pleasant for others, and that latter category might just include you.

shrugging flasher originally appeared on MyConfinedSpace NSFW on July 5, 2016.

Competitive eater Joey “Jaws” Chestnut set a new record this Fourth of July when he scarfed down a whopping 70 hot dogs and buns in just 10 minutes at the annual Famous Nathan’s hot dog eating contest in Coney Island. How do he and other champion competitive eaters do it? With a couple of savvy tricks of the trade, and a bit of science.

Read more...

There aren’t many multiplayer shooters on mobile. Probably because it’s hard to make them work, and it doesn’t take more than a couple of problems to make them frustrating.

You can add Critical Ops to the list now, though. It’s out in a lot of countries, but hasn’t made it to the US App Store just yet. It’s a game of terrorists vs counter terrorists played out with realistic weapons in tight levels. And it doesn’t pull its punches, either. A couple of well placed shots and you’re down for the count. This is a team-based affair, so working with the other people on your side is key, unless you want to get constantly cut to pieces by a better organized force.

Interestingly you can also play the game on Facebook, as well on mobile. That means sometimes you’ll be up against players using mouse and keyboard, although you can filter them out of playlists if you’d prefer.

There’s a focus on skill over anything else here, with the free-to-play aspects of the game focusing on customization rather than super-powering your soldier. The game is a little rough around the edges, but it plays smoothly and the shooting action is surprisingly frantic, thanks in part to well implemented controls that let you jump in almost from the word go.

If you’re not in the US you can grab the game from the App Store and Google Play right now. If you are in the US, you’re going to have to wait a little longer to pick this one up.

The post Critical Ops Is Basically Counter Strike for Mobile appeared first on Gamezebo.

ISIS vowed to make Ramadan violent, and it has delivered. As the Muslim holy month came to a close in the past week, a wave of ISIS-linked terrorist attacks hit places around the world, including bombings at Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport, the execution of roughly 20 hostages in Bangladesh, and one of the deadliest suicide bombing in Baghdad’s recent history. Clearly, the group is stepping up its terrorism efforts. Why?

According to Clint Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), the answer is clear. ISIS is losing territory and money and is lashing out in an attempt to find a way to survive the losses.

"The Islamic State’s gradual decline in Syria and Iraq has finally brought a long expected shift in the group’s tactics," Watts writes in a piece on FPRI’s blog.

Since ISIS swept across Iraq in June 2014, the Islamic State’s core resource has been territory. Controlling land allows it to claim that it is the one true Islamic caliphate, and thus beat out al-Qaeda for recruits. Controlling territory also allows ISIS to run the extortion rackets on the people who live in its territory, which is how it gets most of its money.

Today, its territorial empire is in clear decline. The US government estimates it has lost 45 percent of its peak territory in Iraq and 20 percent of its peak territory in Syria. The funding situation is so dire that it has slashed salaries for its fighters in half.

According to Watts, the recent string of terrorist attacks is a way to make up for these defeats. Terrorist attacks can create the perception of strength, he argues, and attract donations from radical sympathizers:

The Islamic State’s rapid pace of violence may come at a time when they need to find a new home for the brand. Their caliphate revenues and oil production continue to dry up. They will need to shift to illicit schemes and donations to survive. Successful attacks attract investors: will this latest string of violence bring money? Probably not, but what this rampant violence can do is signal to Islamic State’s central leadership which affiliates are still committed to the Islamic State brand.

This shift in strategy toward global attacks was apparent as long ago as November, when ISIS attacked the Bataclan nightclub and other civilian targets in Paris.

"Before this, they had satisfied themselves with trying to inspire attacks. But anyone skilled who's abroad, they were primarily trying to attract them to Syria and Iraq for state building," Will McCants, director of the Project on US Relations With the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution, told me at the time. "This would suggest that they have changed their focus and are willing to direct more resources to foreign operations."

As territorial losses continued since then, the shift to terrorist attacks intensified — resulting in the past week’s carnage. "ISIS loss of territory prompts more ISIS attacks abroad," McCants recently tweeted.

The key takeaway here, then, should not be that these attacks show ISIS is a growing threat. Selling the past week of attacks as a sign of reach and strength, rather than weakness and decline, is handing ISIS the narrative it wants.

This perspective doesn’t make last week’s attacks any less of a tragedy. But being clear about the sources of ISIS’s turn to terrorism helps us limit its ability to profit from the murder of innocents.

Why ISIS attacked Brussels in March

Despite last month’s Brexit referendum, Britain still hasn’t formally started the process of withdrawing from the European Union. There are lots of reasons, but one of the biggest is that it’s really hard for any British leader to do anything about it without causing a political or economic crisis. The following Venn diagram, from Twitter user Quantian, perfectly explains why.

A bit of background first. In order to withdraw from the EU, Britain needs to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Article 50 notification triggers negotiations with the other 27 EU countries over the terms of UK withdrawal. This includes things like whether the UK will remain in the European single market, called the European Economic Area, and whether it will continue to accept unrestricted immigration from other EU countries.

Now take a look at Quantian’s diagram. What it shows is that there is no possible resolution to the Article 50 negotiations that pleases British voters and the other 27 European countries — without tanking the UK economy:

Quantian's chart points out that there are basically three possible ways the negotiations could turn out — and each has major flaws.

1) "Clean break": In this scenario, the UK just leaves the EU without negotiating any sort of alternative arrangements in place. This option could be disruptive for many EU citizens and businesses, but EU leaders wouldn’t have any way to stop it. And Brexit supporters in the UK would find it acceptable.

The problem: Just quitting would trigger a severe recession in the UK, as the British economy depends on free access to the European common market. Forty-four percent of British exports go to the EU, and the UK financial sector depends on free movement of capital between Britain and Europe. No British leader would knowingly crash the UK economy, so they won’t agree to a "clean break." (There is a chance one could be forced into it, however. If Britain triggers Article 50, a clean break automatically happens in two years absent an exit deal between the UK and EU.)

2) "EEA + deal": In this scenario, the UK negotiates a deal with the EU, which would allow it to remain in the EEA but would exempt it from other EU rules — most notably, free migration rules — that Brexit supporters hate.

The problem: EU leaders seem unlikely to agree to this. They don’t want to reward Britain’s vote with favorable exit terms, for fear that voters in other countries (like Greece, France, or the Netherlands) will take this as a sign that they could get a similar deal. So while this solution would work for British voters and leaders, it’s unacceptable to European leaders.

3) "Annul vote": In this scenario, British leaders call backsies on the referendum results and simply refuse to ever submit Article 50 notification. This would prevent the UK leadership from owning the disastrous economic consequences of Brexit, and European leaders would celebrate it as a step away from the brink.

The problem: "Leave" supporters in the UK would feel betrayed and very, very angry — and even some "Remain" supporters might see it as undemocratic. The political backlash against a UK prime minister who calls "Bracksies" could be immense.

So every option available to the UK leadership right now is either politically unviable or economically disastrous. Nobody in British politics has a good answer to this dilemma, which partially explains why Brexit hasn’t happened yet. It also explains why nobody knows when and how a Brexit will happen down the road — if it ends up happening at all.

Watch: What Brexit means for the pound

A young Scottish woman has been crowned "Miss Hitler 2016" by a white supremacist youth group in the UK known as National Action. The contest, conducted over social media, aimed to showcase the female members of the neo-Nazi group that predominantly consists of young men "typically in their late teens or twenties," according to the group's website. Though it had several entries, the group settled on a women from Scotland who goes by the pseudonym "A-Bus-Full-Of-Retards."

National Action had initially announced its contest on Facebook, but the social media site removed the group's page. Similarly, in 2014, a Russian page advertising an online beauty pageant for anti-Semitic women had its page removed by a Russian version of Facebook called VKontakte.

Read More: We Found Some Actual Feminazis—as in Feminist Nazis

After its expulsion from Facebook, though, National Action continued its contest on Twitter and received several submissions from women going by names such as "Lady of the Lolocaust," "BuchenwaldPrincess," and "Eva Bin Gassin."

The winners of "Miss Hitler" were interviewed and had photos featured on the National Action blog. In her interview, "A-Bus-Full-Of-Retards" explained that she enjoys "reading, browsing esoteric memes, and watching the reds lose their shit over our publicity stunts."

Alongside photos of herself in neo-Nazi swag, with her face half-covered by a handkerchief while raising her arm in a "Sieg Heil" gesture, the woman told readers that she didn't always hate Jewish people, but eventually came around to the disturbing ideology.

Miss Hitler 2016

Meet Rachel Lehnardt, 36, who confessed that she had a drunken orgy with her daughter’s friends. The party included nude hot tubing, naked Twister, public sex toy use, smoking illegal drugs, and having sex with an 18-year-old in her bathroom.

The party took place in April of 2015. Lehnardt’s other children were with the father when her 16-year-old daughter asked if she and her friends could come over and “party.” Lehnardt told her via text, “come on, let’s party!”

And they did.

According to the testimony of Lehnardt’s Alcohol Anonymous sponsor, who turned her into the police, she allowed her daughter and friends to binge drink and smoke marijuana in her home. She then took one of her daughter’s friends into the bathroom to have sex with her. Afterwards, she announced to the party that she was “still horny” and began using her sex toys in front of everyone while playing naked Twister.

Then, they all went naked hot tubing and passed out for the night. Lehnardt awoke to someone having sex with her, which turned out to be her daughter’s 16-year-old boyfriend. Lehnardt’s daughter has blamed herself for that, saying that her boyfriend’s 10-inch penis was “too large” for her, and so he needed to have sex with the mother instead. No sexual assault charges have been filed on the boyfriend yet — as far as we know.

After this came to light when Lehnardt’s Alcoholics Anonymous mentor reported it, she lost custody of all of her five children. Her daughter — who was at the party — came to her mother’s defense on Twitter:

Lehnardt has also been seeking professional help and spiritual assistance from a clergy member of the Mormon church. The court gave her 6 years probation and a fine.

The Pretty Things

O Outono Códax Festival, o festival galego de música negra, redimensiona neste 2016 a súa proposta cun total de 6 concertos, fronte ás 3 habituais citas das edicións pasadas. Así, serán tres as fins de semana (días 7 e 8 e 28 e 29 de outubro e 11 e 12 de novembro)  nas que poderemos gozar do seu selecto cartel de soul, rhythm&blues, swing, boogie e rock´n roll.

A Sala Capitol de Santiago será a sede principal do ciclo que este ano desdobrarase tamén na sala compostelá Riquela, un novo espazo de lecer no centro do casco vello que nace coa vocación de complementar a actual oferta musical e cultural da capital galega e que terá as súas portas abertas ao público o vindeiro mes de setembro. Esta 6ª edición do festival conta de novo co patrocinio de Martín Códax, e coa colaboración de Pousadas de Compostela, así como a de case un cento de establecementos hostaleiros e comerciais da capital galega.

Martha High

Grandes voces
Serán dúas das grandes voces do soul contemporáneo, Lee Fields e Marta High, e os míticos The Pretty Things, unha das bandas máis importantes do rock´n roll británico de todos os tempos, os que protagonicen con toda seguridade algúns dos momentos máis sonados deste ano. Xunto a eles, actuarán no Outono Códax dúas das referencias internacionais actuais máis salientables do xénero: Luke Winsloy King (considerado líder dos novos tradicionalistas do son Nova Orleans) e Virgina Brown and The Shameless (banda siciliana que mestura os ritmos afrocubanos co rhythm&blues nunha explosión de enerxía que arrasa alá por onde pasa).

Os cataláns Wax&Boogie (convertidos xa nunha das mellores expresións estatais do formato blues, rhythm&blues e boogie woogie) e os asturianos TrashTornados (banda de virtuosos que van moito máis alá do neo swing co que habitualmente son etiquetados) redondean un cartel no que a achega galega deste ano, compromiso irrenunciable do festival coa música feita en Galicia, correrá a cargo de dúas das bandas máis prometedoras da escena actual: The Hellbuckers e Andhrea and The Black Cats.

Lee Fields

Actividades paralelas
Como xa é habitual, o Outono completa a súa proposta musical con distintas actividades paralelas relacionadas co seu ámbito polo que, un ano máis e fiel a esta filosofía, inclúe nesta edición a expo “Rocker, retrato dun espírito”, na que o fotógrafo catalán Antonio Alay ofrece a súa visión sobre a cultura rockabilly e os amantes do rock´n roll clásico, nun traballo no que regresa ao negro en busca das luces da noite, as caras afiadas e os ritmos acelerados. A mostra permanecerá aberta na Fundación Granell de Santiago, do 28 de outubro ao 15 de novembro. Á exposición uniranse as xa tradicionais allnighters do festival (pinchadas ao final de cada concerto) e as sesións out: pequenos concertos gratuítos na rúa cos que a organización quere sacar o festival a pequenos espazos abertos que permitan ao público gozar de auténticos directos en pequeno formato.

En canto aos prezos, venderanse entradas individuais de 20 euros (+gastos) en venda anticipada e 24 euros en billeteira para os concertos na Sala Capitol, e de 4 euros para os concertos na Sala Riquela. É máis, os abonos deste ano, que terán un prezo de 40 euros (+gastos) ate o 31 de agosto e de 48 euros (+gastos) a partir do 1 de setembro, incluirá o acceso gratuíto aos 3 concertos da Sala Riquela.

De igual xeito, e como nas súas anteriores edicións, o Outono Códax porá en circulación o denominado “Rock´nporte”, un “pasaporte” directo e gratuíto aos concertos para aquelas persoas que realicen consumicións ou compras nos case 100 establecementos hostaleiros e comerciais que colaboran co festival.

The post Dobre ración de Outono Códax Festival con seis concertos entre outubro e novembro appeared first on Pincha(e)Discos.

This Thursday, the festival of San Fermin begins in Pamplona, Spain, and on Friday the festival's most famous attraction will start: the running of the bulls, where every day six bulls are released to dash 930 yards (a little more than half a mile) through the city’s streets to its bullring, while humans try to outrun them and avoid injury, and thousands of spectators look on.

The event is typically enjoyed as a kind of extreme sport, where runners risk being gored for the adrenaline high the danger provokes. It’s quick, typically lasting between two and three minutes. When it gets covered in English press, it’s usually in the context of the injuries that dumb American and British tourists, eager to relive Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises, occasionally suffer.

But let’s not lose sight of the fundamental purpose of the exercise: transporting bulls from outside the city to the bullring, where they will later be killed in a prolonged, ritualistic fashion.

Yes, the running of the bulls is about bullfighting, and bullfighting, for all its romanticization in Western culture, is a fundamentally cruel, indefensible practice. The mainstream of Spanish society is coming around to this view (Catalonia banned bullfighting in 2010), and it’s high time foreigners enthused by the running of the bulls come around too.

What a bullfight is like for the bull

Mehdi Fedouach/AFP/Getty Images

The leading organization resisting bullfighting in Spain is AVATMA, an group of veterinarians pushing for the practice’s abolition. An excellent paper from the organization’s José Zaldívar and colleagues details the ordinary sequences of fights and all the points at which bulls suffer.

Bullfighting is traditionally split into three segments. In the first, tercio de varas (the third of lancing), a man on horseback or picador stabs the bull repeatedly in the neck with a spear.

"This puncture opens up to 7 different wounds of an average length of 20 cm," Zaldívar and company write (20 cm is a little under 8 inches). "The puya [spear] produces serious damage in muscles, tendons, ligaments, blood vessels, nerves (dorsal to the spinal and brachial plexus), spinous and transverse processes of dorsal vertebrae, ribs and their cartilages, and scapulas and their cartilage. It is also able to cause pneumothorax. The bull can lose between the 8 and 18 percent (3 to 6.7l) of its blood volume."

The point of this portion of the ceremony is to injure the neck muscles of the bull such that it can't lift its head, and to weaken it through loss of blood.

The second part of the fight is known as the tercio de banderillas, where six harpoons (the titular banderillas) are stabbed into the bull's shoulders. The harpoons "dig into the injured areas, increasing the pain already inflicted by the puya with every movement the bull makes."

Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty Images

In the third segment, the tercio de muerte, the bull is killed by the matador, who plunges an 80- to 88-centimeter-long sword (about 2.5 feet) into the bull's chest, puncturing the bronchi, lungs, and large blood vessels along the way. "This causes profuse bleeding in the thoracic cavity and, therefore, a slow asphyxia," Zaldívar et al. write. "The bull suffocates, it coughs lots of blood, and finally collapses."

Only sometimes that’s not enough to kill the bull. In that event, the matador uses another sword to try to sever the bull's spinal cord or brain stem, causing quadriplegia. Then the bullfighter's assistant slices the medulla oblongata to slowly halt respiratory and cardiac functions. "This method was banned in EU slaughterhouses due to its cruelty," Zaldívar et al. write.

The authors also look into less immediately evident damage caused by the fights. About 60 percent of bulls have fractured or fissured skulls due to the picador's horse stirrup hitting against them. The blood of bulls after death shows dramatically more lactate, a sign that they could not cope with the exercise they were forced to endure and suffered severe muscle injuries. Hormones related to stress, trauma, injury, and pain are all found in greater numbers.

Veterinarians Susan Krebsbach and Mark Jones also tried to scientifically evaluate the suffering endured by bulls by showing video recordings of 28 bullfights to three independent veterinarians, who then graded the animals' distress. They found that animals were typically wounded more than 10 times every fight, and that signs of distress like tail swishing, slowing down due to exhaustion, reluctance to move, and labored breathing were all common.

"The frequency with which bulls during bullfights exhibit behaviors identified as indicators of distress, suggest that fighting bulls experience distress — they suffer in the bull ring," Krebsbach and Jones conclude.

None of the defenses of bullfighting hold up

AVATMA

It should not be particularly surprising that bullfighting inflicts massive amounts of pain on the roughly 250,000 bulls it kills annually worldwide. There’s plenty of evidence in the literature on dairy cows suggesting that cattle are capable of feeling pain. For instance, experiments have shown that giving painkillers to dairy cattle improves their gait — suggesting that they were feeling pain, and that alleviating that pain made walking easier. Cows’ behavior suggests an ability to feel emotion, as they warm to people who pet them and produce less milk among people who frighten them.

They’re also remarkably intelligent. "Cows can not only solve simple problems but they become excited when a solution is found," researchers F. Bailey Norwood and Jayson L. Lusk write in Compassion by the Pound. "Cows can be trained to perform simple feats, such as pushing a lever for food, and they can read certain signs. Cows are especially adept at remembering directions and geographic locations, and at recognizing their peers."

This is the animal that’s being tormented in a bullfight, that’s being stabbed repeatedly and having its organs pierced and ruptured.

Defenders of the practice typically invoke its role as a cultural tradition in Spain, arguing that this alone makes it worthy of preservation. The implicit notion that any longstanding practice, regardless of cruelty, should endure for the sake of cultural memory is rather perverse. Humane countries don’t sustain traditions that inflict needless suffering; they end them.

Even apart from that, it’s worth remembering what kind of tradition bullfighting is. The practice’s main political champion in the 20th century was dictator Francisco Franco, and it’s still deeply associated with his memory. Left-wing parties in Spain tend to be critical of bullfighting, and its association with Franco is part of why Catalan separatists, whose cause was brutally repressed under the Franco regime, have become some of bullfighting’s most vocal opponents. The tradition of which bullfighting is a part is deeply reactionary, and associated with some of the most shameful moments in Spanish history.

Factory farming is the bigger problem, but that doesn’t excuse bullfighting

Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor via Getty Images

The main argument offered in defense of bullfighting on animal welfare terms is that it isn’t as bad as agricultural practices involving beef. "I came to understand that the fighting bulls’ lot of five years on free-release followed by 25 minutes in the arena is equal if not better than the meat cow’s 18 months corralled in prison followed by a ‘humane’ death," Alexander Fiske-Harrison, a British journalist who trained as a bullfighter, writes.

This argument betrays an ignorance of what is actually involved in modern beef production. As Norwood and Lusk note, cattle are treated far, far better than chickens and hogs, which live fairly abysmal lives. That’s because the most economically efficient way to raise cattle is to let them graze naturally, albeit with predator protection, food security, and health care.

"The animals are usually housed in pastures large enough that space, crowding, and fighting are not a problem," Norwood and Lusk write. "Most of the literature that we have looked at about factory farming written by animal rights activists contains very little about beef production. That is because there are very few animal welfare problems that exist with beef production."

Slaughter practices are also reasonably, albeit not perfectly, humane. Typically, slaughterhouses use cap-bolt guns to render cows brain-dead before killing them, minimizing any pain they might endure. Widespread changes inaugurated by animal welfare expert Temple Grandin have further minimized the stress of the process through devices like curved chutes (which obscure the view of the slaughter for cattle coming down the line, calming them) and center-track restrainers (which holds cows steady to make sure they're stunned correctly and don't feel pain).

Compare that with bullfighting bulls, which are mutilated and feel tremendous pain before the point of death.

Fiske-Harrison has a bit of a point in that the animal suffering caused by factory farming of pigs and particularly chickens vastly outweighs that caused by bullfighting. As priorities go, those come first. But there’s no need to make good causes the enemy of each other. Chickens should be raised humanely, and bullfighting should end. Both of these are necessary steps in moving toward a world that takes animal suffering seriously.

The most likely character to survive may surprise you. (The least likely is Cersei, which should surprise no one.)

Each week throughout Game of Thrones’ sixth season, a handful of Vox's writers have gathered to discuss the latest episode — and now we’re doing the same with the finale. Before you dig in, check out our recap of "The Winds of Winter," as well the archive of our entire discussion to date. Concluding our discussion for the season is culture editor Todd VanDerWerff.

Todd VanDerWerff: Now that the sixth season of Game of Thrones is over, the long wait for any information at all about the seventh season (which will air in 2017) begins.

But as Rowan Kaiser points out in this excellent essay on the show’s slow trend toward conventionality (and as I pointed out here), it’s become easier and easier to predict what’s going to happen on this show, at least within reason.

So let’s try to predict the thing everyone’s most curious about: Who’s going to die?

I’ve picked the 15 most important Game of Thrones characters (because talking about everybody would take too long) and ranked them based on how likely they are to make it to the end of the series finale (which should air at the end of season eight in 2018). With just 13 to 15 episodes left, everybody still alive only has to make it a little further, but the final days of this show should end up being a bloodbath.

Anyway, let’s put Game of Thrones to bed for the year by ranking the characters from least to most likely to survive.

15) Cersei Lannister, least likely to survive

HBO

At this point, after blowing up a sept and killing thousands, then ascending to the throne in the wake of her son Tommen’s death, Cersei is basically the only guaranteed death of the 15 characters I’ve chosen. She might make it a while, but she looks to be the show’s final non–White Walker villain, and she’ll be a doozy of one. But then she’ll die.

How far will she make it? Season seven playing out as Cersei versus some sort of alliance between Daenerys and Jon seems pretty likely to me. To that end, Cersei will probably perish in the season seven finale, at the hand of her brother and lover, Jaime.

14) Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish

HBO

Most viewers of the show might rank Littlefinger rather high on this list, but I think he’s dangerously overconfident at this point. I can see a version of this show where he ascends to sit upon the Iron Throne, but I think it’s more likely he’s ultimately, finally outsmarted (probably by Sansa, his protégé) and loses his life.

How far will he make it? He’ll die somewhere in season seven as a supposedly shocking moment.

13) Davos Seaworth

HBO

I actually expect Davos to make it all the way to the series finale, but not all the way to its end. He’s the old man adviser, and the old man adviser always dies in stories like this.

How far will he make it? Like I said, I expect him to make some sort of heroic sacrifice in the series finale.

12) Melisandre

HBO

Jon has already told her that if she returns to the North, he’ll have her executed. Considering that the threat of the White Walkers invading the Seven Kingdoms seems imminent, she will almost certainly have to return to the North at some point. She’ll make it to season eight, but she’ll eventually die.

How far will she make it? Somewhere around season eight’s midpoint, she will give up her life to save Jon somehow, thus settling the debt between them.

11) Theon Greyjoy

HBO

Theon has endured so much suffering that there’s an outside chance he’ll survive to find some form of inner peace. But I think it’s more likely he will give his life to save one of the many people he wronged back in the day, presumably one of the Stark siblings.

How far will he make it? Early in season eight, Theon will give himself up to save Sansa or Bran. Count on it.

10) Jaime Lannister

HBO

Jaime’s ultimate allegiances are one of the few remaining questions viewers have in terms of who will be on the side of "good" and who will be on the side of "evil." None of the characters have much reason to trust Jaime, but he also increasingly seems uneasy about siding with his sister. This makes him the Snape of the Game of Thrones universe (to toss in a Harry Potter reference at random), which means he’ll probably die, but in a way that makes everybody feel weird.

How far will he make it? He seems like a classic "next to the last episode" kinda death for me. It will come when he’s saving Tyrion, I would bet.

9) Arya Stark

HBO

Another Stark child is going to die. I think that’s just inevitable. The three left alive have made themselves proficient at politics (Sansa), magic (Bran), and violence (Arya), and the show is clearly nodding toward Arya simply becoming a vehicle for vengeance at this point in her life. Vehicles for vengeance rarely make it all the way to the end, and I think Arya is probably doomed.

How far will she make it? She’ll get to the series finale, though!

8) Brienne of Tarth

HBO

We’re now among the group of characters I consider more likely to survive than die. Brienne could certainly die in battle against the White Walkers, but she seems more likely to end up heading the Kingsguard after the dust settles. Still, she’s a great swordswoman, which means she could always die in a fight.

How far will she make it? If she dies (and I don’t think she will), it will be in the final battle against the White Walkers.

7) Bran Stark

HBO

Bran now has such immense magical powers that he’s going to prove a great asset to the forces of humanity whenever he rejoins everybody else. But that also means he’ll probably become one of the White Walkers’ primary targets. I think he’ll survive, but one never knows.

How far will he make it? Bran’s death in one of the final few episodes could make for a nice "all hope is lost" moment. But I think he’ll make it out alive.

6) Varys

HBO

If Varys dies, it will be at Cersei's hand somehow. That means if he can make it out of season seven alive, I think he’s probably safe forever. And considering he’s one of the show’s most purely entertaining characters, the writers would have to be crazy to kill him.

How far will he make it? Varys will have some sort of place on the small council when the series ends.

5) Daenerys Targaryen

HBO

The most logical prediction is that Dany survives the series and winds up the queen of the Seven Kingdoms. But that also means she’d be the easiest character to kill off in a "shocking" fashion pretty much anywhere along the way. Remember: George R.R. Martin probably has one more out-of-nowhere death up his sleeve. Dany would be my bet for that, but I also will bow to conventional wisdom and anoint her queen.

How far will she make it? She’ll be the queen of the Seven Kingdoms. Or she won’t, and she’ll die in some sort of freak accident in the season seven premiere.

4) Sansa Stark

HBO

Just as one of the last three Stark siblings must die, one of them must live. Sansa strikes me as the most logical choice, if only because the show is trying to build (incredibly weird!) sexual tension between her and Jon, a man she believes to be her half-brother. (He’s actually her cousin.) Plus, Sansa’s going to be incredibly valuable at political intrigue, and that always comes in handy in Westeros.

How far will she make it? She’ll enter a politically advantageous marriage with someone, then survive to advise Queen Daenerys. Or she’ll side with Littlefinger and be dragged down by him (in which case, Arya will be the Stark to survive).

3) Tyrion Lannister

HBO

These top three characters are all "they’ll die in the series finale, if they die at all" characters to me. Tyrion has long been a favorite of book readers, show viewers, and George R.R. Martin himself. He will be the hand of either Dany or Jon, whichever of the two rules.

How far will he make it? Even if the White Walkers win, he’ll find some way to advise the Night’s King.

2) Jon Snow

HBO

Jon Snow returned from the dead. He’ll be sticking around. He might even become king.

How far will he make it? He’s going to live forever.

1) Samwell Tarly, the most likely to survive

HBO

Sam is widely seen as an authorial surrogate for George R.R. Martin, with his rotund figure and love of books. Imagine there’s a finale for this show where the White Walkers win and only one character survives. It’s going to be Sam, right? He’s basically the guy who comes out at the end of a Shakespearean tragedy and says, "Oh, shit. Maybe I should have warned somebody!" And wouldn’t it be sort of hilarious if only Sam lived? I agree.

How far will he make it? Sam is basically that guy in that one Twilight Zone episode who is happy the nuclear apocalypse happened, because he’ll finally have time to read, only to immediately break his glasses. He’ll make it the whole way.

Game of Thrones' time travel, explained

ENFP

You’re the partner-in-crime girlfriend. Whichever wild antic, adventurous trip or crazy idea your partner comes up with, you are not only on board for but are probably even more excited about than they are. You love the way you do everything else – passionately and without restraint. Your partner never has to question whether you love them, are invested in them or are down for the next big adventure. You are, and you’re probably more excited about all of it than they are.

INFP

You’re the passionate girlfriend. Nobody loves their partner as deeply, intensely and fully as an INFP. You want to know everything about the person you’re with – all of their fears, their desires and their deepest wounds. You strive to understand your partner as intimately as possible and to express that love through your words, your actions and your art. Nobody can turn the object of their affection into poetry, music or art quite the way an INFP can.

ENFJ

You’re the nurturing girlfriend. Nothing makes you happier than aiding in your loved ones’ development and growth – and this is particularly true when it comes to your romantic relationships. You will go to absolutely any lengths to ensure that your partner is thriving within the relationship. Their happiness truly is your happiness as well and romantic relationships bring out the natural counselor in you.

INFJ

You’re the ride-or-die girlfriend. You don’t do casual relationships and when you choose to invest in someone, it’s because you see a future with them. Once you’ve made that commitment, you’ll stand by your partner come hell or high water. You make a point to understand your partner deeply and support them fully in everything they do. You see relationships as an exercise in teamwork and you’re ready to throw your all into making your team absolutely thrive.

ESTJ

You’re the has-their-shit-together girlfriend. You’re a strong-as-hell partner who needs a strong-as-hell companion to keep up. The men (or ladies) in your life know that you’re not messing around when it comes to dating – they have to shape up and show up if they want to impress you. Of course if they do, you’ll be as loyal as they come – you’re in it for the long haul and you need someone who isn’t afraid to say the same!

ISTJ

You’re the unwavering girlfriend. In a world full of partners who flake, freak out and fail to show up for their relationship, you’re someone your partner can rely on. When you’re committed to a relationship, you’re committed – there’s nothing you aren’t willing to do to make it work. You’re ready for an adult relationship in a world full of flakey daters and you refuse to settle for anything less than the same.

ESTP

You’re the wild child girlfriend. Always the life of the party and the center of attention, you are not afraid to stir things up. Your SO knows that dating you means they’ll never be bored for a moment – you’ll have active social lives, active sex lives and active physical lives – every day with you will be a new adventure and they love you like crazy for it.

ISTP

You’re the independent girlfriend. You need a lot of space to do your own thing, so you’re happiest dating other self-sustaining personalities. You’re always down to have fun but at the end of the day you feel most comfortable relying on yourself first and foremost. Partners admire your independence and know that you’re with them because you genuinely love them – not just because you want to be with someone!

ENTP

You’re the badass girlfriend. You have a quick wit and a devil-may-care attitude – one that is ceaselessly attractive to those around you. Any potential partner of yours knows that they have to be willing to break the rules if they want to be with you – you move at lightening speed and you don’t wait around for anyone to catch up.

INTP

You’re the intellectual girlfriend. Books were the first love of your life and you’re not interested in dating anyone who doesn’t have a similar thirst for knowledge. Partners know that dating you means attending lectures, engaging in debates and committing themselves to continuous growth alongside you. You may not be a not a die-hard romantic, but you love with an unbeatable combination of mind and heart. And that’s some of the sexiest stuff out there.

ENTJ

You’re the powerhouse girlfriend. You’ve got your sh*t together and everyone who’s ever met you knows it. You aren’t investing in any flight risks, so potential partners have to either show the hell up to each date or get out. You plan to be half of a power couple if you’re going to enter into a relationship at all, and you’re willing to accept nothing less. You keep your standards high for partners because you keep your standards high for yourself.

INTJ

You’re the girlfriend who challenges her partners. It’s not that you can’t be sweet, loving and supportive – it’s just that to you, being supportive means pushing both yourself and your partner to become the absolute best versions of yourselves. You are constantly presenting your loved ones with new ideas and pushing them to think about things in different ways. To you, love means mutual growth and development – and the right partner absolutely loves you for that.

ISFJ

You’re the death-do-us-part-girlfriend. Simply put, you’re marriage material. You know what you want from a relationship and you aren’t messing around when it comes to finding the person you can be happy with long-term. You invest 110% of yourself into romantic relationships and once you’ve met someone you can see a future with, there is nothing you won’t do to make it work.

ESFJ

You’re the old-fashioned girlfriend. It’s not that your style or your attitude is stuck in the past, it’s just that you believe in actual dating – you know, the way past generations did it. You’re looking for a genuine gentleman who isn’t afraid to pull out all of the stops to impress you. You give your absolute all to relationships, and you’re looking for someone who does the same. Chivalry and romance aren’t dead as long as you’re around!

ISFP

You’re the sensitive girlfriend. You are highly in tune with your partner when it comes to all of their needs and desires – you take on his or her struggles as your own and are always aware of the relationship’s health. While being sensitive may be a struggle in some areas of your life, it’s your greatest strength within a relationship. You can always tell when something is off between you and your partner and you always dive right into fixing it.

ESFP

You are the bombshell girlfriend. You’re charming, adventurous, outgoing and effortlessly in tune with your partner’s wants and needs. You’re the girl at the party who everyone wants to get to know, and the partner everyone is proud to be dating. You can charm the pants off just about anybody but you’re selective about who you actually invest in. Once you do commit to a relationship, you’re both as caring and as fun-loving as they come – and your partner can never get enough of you!

Una semana después de las elecciones es probable que quede ya poco que aportar al esclarecimiento del gran interrogante: ‘¿por qué se marcharon a la abstención los votantes que todas las encuestas asignaban a Unidos Podemos?’. Y es posible también que en pocas ocasiones como ésta no quepa encontrar una sola respuesta satisfactoria, entre otras cosas porque la pregunta solo puede responderse acudiendo a una pluralidad de factores, diferentes y hasta opuestos entre sí.

Todas estas variables deben manejarse con dos cautelas previas, que contribuyen a situar la problemática en sus justos términos. En primer lugar, el millón largo de votos perdido por la suma de Podemos, Izquierda Unida y las confluencias ha ido a parar casi por entero a la abstención, y no al PSOE, al que no le ha sido posible, ni en estas circunstancias, recobrar el papel que reclama de “partido hegemónico de la izquierda”. En segundo lugar, la campaña del miedo y de hostigamiento contra Podemos, que ha alcanzado –como ha afirmado en estas páginas Santiago Alba– el peligroso estatus de fomento del odio contra un sector del país, más que empujar a supuestos votantes de Podemos a la abstención, ha logrado concentrar el voto conservador en el Partido Popular, alimentado no solo con el descenso de Ciudadanos (375.000 votos aprox.), sino también con la debacle de UPyD (100.000 votos menos) e incluso con las pérdidas de PSOE (otros 100.000) y de Vox (11.000).

¿Quiénes prefirieron la abstención?

Atendidas estas prevenciones, el ‘podemólogo’ se encuentra ante una maraña de variables que impiden lanzar un diagnóstico unilateral y prescribir un tratamiento monocolor. Buena parte de los votos migrados a la abstención proceden, sin lugar a dudas, de exvotantes de Izquierda Unida, tanto de su sector comunista más ortodoxo como de su sector socialdemócrata más tibio, que han coincidido en su desprecio permanente a Podemos y en su rechazo al liderazgo de Alberto Garzón. Otra parte de esos votos desplazados al sector abstencionista, probablemente menor, puede proceder de los fundamentalistas de la transversalidad, que veían en la alianza con Izquierda Unida una traición a una seña de identidad de la formación morada. Sin coalición electoral, no se habrían perdido los primeros, pero tampoco se habrían ganado los centenares de miles de votos aportados por IU, rápidamente traducibles en escaños; tampoco se habrían perdido los votos transversales, rebasados, sin embargo, con amplitud por los transfundidos por la formación izquierdista. Conclusión: sin coalición y por separado el resultado habría sido peor, con una IU compacta en votos pero nula en escaños, y con un Podemos con sus transversales bien insertos pero sufriendo los desgastes que paso a indicar.

Otra de las vías de escape hacia la abstención procede de la propia erosión experimentada por Podemos desde que se convirtió en fuerza parlamentaria. Es un desgaste muy concentrado en la figura de su líder, que ha dado sobradas y reiteradas muestras, tanto por sus oscilaciones ciclotímicas como por la impostura de su moderación, de tener una estatura política bastante menor de la pretendida. Abundan, en efecto, quienes no tragaban ya a Pablo Iglesias, y es algo que puede ir a peor, tanto por deméritos propios como por campañas prefabricadas de desprestigio. También figuran quienes empezaron a ver en el partido morado una formación efectista, huera de contenidos políticos efectivos, vulgarmente tacticista y hasta políticamente obstruccionista. Actos desafortunados, como la famosa rueda de prensa presentando el futuro gobierno de coalición, en combinación con numerosas anécdotas y gestos parlamentarios de pretensiones mitificadoras pero popularmente ridículas, contribuyeron a labrar esta imagen y a sembrar los primeros conatos de desafección.

Otra de las líneas de fuga ha procedido de su cambiante actitud hacia el PSOE. Su oposición hostil al partido con el que supuestamente deseaba cogobernar, siendo comprensible política y emocionalmente, no ha ayudado nada en el terreno electoral. A muchos exvotantes socialistas que habían confiado en Podemos, y que en los noventa se encontraban constituidos políticamente por los parámetros de PRISA, se les ha hecho intragable el regreso en volandas de Julio Anguita, su bête noire. Colocar parte de la campaña, en su dimensión icónica y discursiva, en aquella década demoledora, no ha podido resultar más contraproducente para una fuerza que se presume de futuro. Sin embargo, esta vía de desagüe es de doble dirección, y han figurado también, en proporción menor, los que, incorporados desde la abstención el 20D para apoyar a una fuerza de ruptura, no han soportado ahora contemplar a sus líderes en un constante flirteo con la socialdemocracia, a la que consideran la formación traidora por antonomasia, y han regresado a su lugar natural de la abstención.

Incluso tampoco cabe despreciar a los desmovilizados por el viento a favor de las encuestas, que dando por seguro el sorpasso y el triunfo de la izquierda prefirieron vacacionar el fin de semana del 26.

Lo peculiar de todas estas variables es que no pueden enfrentarse de manera unívoca. Acudir a sellar una de las vías de desagüe obliga a desatender las otras. Intentar contentar a votantes espiritualmente socialistas lleva a perder a los desencantados y hasta asqueados con el PSOE. Satisfacer los requerimientos de los transversales enajena miles de votos de izquierda en nombre de un horizonte incierto de crecimiento. Y renunciar al liderazgo de Pablo Iglesias podría hacer perder muchos más votos de los recuperados por la imagen proyectada de división interna y debilidad.

Tampoco cabe ya intentar con nostalgia devolver la situación al momento en que todo se torció. Tal cosa ocurrió cuando Podemos renunció a ser un “instrumento al servicio de la ciudadanía” para reapropiarse de las instituciones, desalojando de ellas a la élite extractiva que las tiene secuestradas. Esta condición exigía unos requisitos participativos destinados a presentar en candidaturas unitarias a ciudadanos independientes, con trayectoria cívica y profesional intachable, de ejemplaridad ética incontestable, que permitieran quebrar la alternancia elitista del bipartidismo. Frente a ello, se prefirió optar por convertir el grupo fundador del partido en grupo parlamentario, y a la dinámica funesta de las listas plancha vino a unirse, con la suma de Izquierda Unida, toda la mala praxis de las primarias de Unidad Popular, que arrojaron asimismo como conclusión una clamorosa ausencia de liderazgos provinciales solventes.

Comunicación, intereses y técnica

Colocado ante semejante disyuntiva y sin poderse remediar ya los extravíos originarios, solo cabe optar por dar un paso adelante que trascienda estos dilemas y supere los corsés que ellos imponen. A raíz de un brillante artículo de Íñigo Errejón publicado en esta revista se produjo un intenso debate en el bloque político del cambio polarizado en torno a dos posiciones: una sostiene que la subjetividad política es consecuencia, ante todo, de las representaciones culturales; la otra, en cambio, asegura que es cosa de los intereses materiales. Como es usual en el razonamiento disgregador, nada sintético, de la izquierda actual, ambas posiciones se presentan como irreconciliables, cuando nada impide combinarlas en proporción variable, atendidas las circunstancias y siempre a la busca de la estrategia y la decisión más eficiente.

Pues bien, en dicho debate, que en el fondo gira sobre el modo de hacer más eficaz la acción política de las fuerzas del cambio, se olvidó una tercera dimensión: la técnica. Para atraer apoyos y adhesiones no solo debe procurarse arraigar en los intereses materiales de los sujetos; tampoco basta con saber generar, a través de la comunicación, una narrativa hegemónica y una atmósfera cultural propicia; hay asimismo que contar con un proyecto racional, esto es, técnicamente viable, para lograr los fines apetecidos, y, sobre todo, deben identificarse con claridad esos fines y trazar la trayectoria jurídica, administrativa y económica adecuada para alcanzarlos.

Para satisfacer este último aspecto los partidos necesitan cuadros, que es justamente lo que escasea en Unidos Podemos (y lo que abunda, por la vía de la externalización que ahora indicaré, en el PP y en el PSOE). De hecho, la gran tragedia de los partidos contemporáneos como dispositivos de representación política es que sus equipos de cuadros se han esfumado. El saber acumulado en la sociedad ya no tiene en el partido un espacio de cristalización proyectiva. En la política actual, los cuadros técnicos, y, por consiguiente, los proyectos de transformación legislativa, los proporcionan las corporaciones, que siempre tienen por esta vía hilo directo con los consejos de ministros y el poder de condicionar la legislación parlamentaria. Así, estudios como el de Lee Drutman (The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became more Corporate) muestran cómo, en la política norteamericana, son los lobistas de las grandes empresas los que surten de información a los congresistas y preparan los proyectos normativos que las cámaras terminan ratificando. Y en España las cosas van por idéntico camino.

Parece indiscutible la importancia de esos cuadros encargados de proponer fórmulas viables y de dar forma técnica al sueño del cambio. Sin ellos, las promesas publicitarias de un nuevo país, o la imprescindible recuperación de la movilización social, se quedan cojas. Su mediación se torna además indispensable cuando se trata de proponer una política detallada, consecuente y posible sobre los aspectos fundamentales del cambio: la cuestión laboral, territorial, económica, penal, universitaria, judicial, educativa, sanitaria o de las pensiones. Para ello no bastan las buenas intenciones, ni los eslóganes atractivos, ni tampoco la reorganización de clase; se requiere también un conocimiento solvente de la maraña legislativa nacional y europea, de las experiencias comparadas, de los límites y de las opciones disponibles para practicar el cambio. Se trataría, en suma, de construir esa “utopía reflexiva” y “consciente” que Pierre Bourdieu asignaba como tarea primordial al intelectual crítico en oposición al “activismo por el activismo”.

La importancia de los cuadros para Unidos Podemos contrasta, sin embargo, con su manifiesto desprecio hacia ellos. El único conato de organización de un laboratorio de expertos al servicio del partido fue, según mis noticias, descabezado de mala manera por un conocido gerifalte, después caído en desgracia. También hubo algún modesto intento similar alrededor de Alberto Garzón, bloqueado desde un comienzo por infundados temores de aparato ante el intrusismo. Pero los cuadros de la izquierda rara vez buscan aposento financiado; les mueve la convicción ética. Se hallan enclavados en buena proporción en el medio universitario. No se aguardan, se reclutan. El capital humano movilizado en las nuevas formaciones para vender mejor su producto en las redes podría también destinarse, siquiera en parte, a la búsqueda de los juristas, sociólogos, economistas, pedagogos y politólogos críticos que, con los pies en la tierra y signados por una fuerte especialización, preparen un proyecto de transformación progresista que vaya más allá de los eslóganes de un catálogo de Ikea.

Explorar y desarrollar esta opción, sin desatender por ello las exigencias de la comunicación y la movilización, permitiría moverse en el escenario creado en la actualidad de muy diferente forma. Los dilemas no serían ya si pisar más o menos callos en el PSOE, si parecer más o menos de izquierda, si apostar por mayor o menor transversalidad. Las urgencias marcadas por el diseño de propuestas creíbles de gobernación servirían para trascender estas disyuntivas de difícil salida, a la par que desactivarían parcialmente los rechazos al efectismo vacuo y las campañas del miedo irracional. Cultivando esa vía la dirigencia de Unidos Podemos prepararía una oposición sólida y se haría justicia a sí misma, mostrando que concentra mayor intensidad de mérito y capacidad que cualquier otra de las formaciones progresistas. Y, sobre todo, evitaría el riesgo fatal de caer en la ensoñación de que nos encontramos ante un “proceso histórico irreversible”, que está fatalmente destinado a desembocar en una victoria de la nueva generación política y en un cambio de raíz en nuestra cultura cívica.

Esta creencia determinista en los procesos sociales ineluctables, muy propia de la izquierda, ha sido gran fuente de desmovilización y desencanto, y resulta un tanto inadecuada si es formulada en términos tan partidarios y domésticos, cuando el verdadero e imparable proceso de transformación histórica abierto es el del desbocamiento del capitalismo global. Y para enfrentarlo, alzando contrapoderes políticos e institucionales, no basta con la “retórica”, aquel arma apta para dar “victorias estrepitosas” y afortunadas solo en el “aspecto electoralista de la acción política”; en tiempos de tregua electoral se requiere además, y ante todo, movilización, y también aquella “preordenación técnica minuciosa y orgánica” de la que hablase Gramsci en su apunte La retorica e lo spirito di lotta.

-------------------------------------------------

Sebas Martín es profesor de historia del derecho en la Universidad de Sevilla y miembro del Grupo Ruptura.

WARNING: A person gets stabbed in the hand in this video.

This has happened again.

Previously:

Here's how the spike trick is supposed to work: a magician shows the spectator a large nail mounted on a block of wood. He sets it on the table so the nail is pointed up. Then he covers the nail with a paper bag. He places three identical paper bags next to the bag covering the nail. He turns his back and asks the spectator to shuffle the four bags around on the table so that the magician has no idea which one has the nail. The magician turns around to face the bags, then slams his hand down one a bag. It was empty. He repeats the process until only one bag is left. He lifts the bag to reveal the nail. It's a nerve-wracking trick.

Recently a magician performed the trick and made a bad mistake, driving the nail through his hand. You can see the photos here. Fortunately, he's going to recover.

And here's a video from 2007 that captures another magician stabbing himself. It's not too graphic, but it is hard to watch anyway because you know what's coming.

I have no interest in performing this trick.