Estimado Doctor Mansilla:
He leído con atención su siempre interesante columna y me permito, a la sazón, hacerle algunos comentarios.
Las elecciones norteamericanas, como cualquier otras, son un tema bastante complicado. Creo que hay que separar los hechos de la presentación que de estos hacen ambas partes, para hacernos una idea de que es lo que realmente esta pasando.
Los llamados tea party no son republicanos realmente (por lo menos desde la definición de la práctica política que propugnan), tal vez sean los únicos republicanos en teoría, pero la mayoría es la que define la práctica política y ee en ese juego en el que hay que juzgar los resultados. Los Tea Party le han costado a los Republicanos la mayoría en el Senado y no han servido de nada en California, donde la candidata a la gobernación Whitman no pudo ganarle a Jerry Brown (el candidato Demócrata) a pesar de los $160 Millones de Dólares que gastó de su propio dinero. En Delaware, la candidata al Senado Christine O´Donnell perdió, a pesar del abierto apoyo de Sarah Palin, ex candidata a vice presidente de los republicanos y eminente figura de los Tea Partiers. Existe entre este grupo un denominador común que se refiere a la creencia en un estado reducido y a un limitado gasto fiscal, pero la realidad es que el partido de Lincoln se ha convertido en la pesadilla del Presidente Eisenhower, donde el complejo industrial bélico norteamericano dicta los destinos de la nación y decide al fin en que se gasta el dinero de los contribuyentes.
Si estudiamos las medidas de los llamados conservadores alrededor del mundo, como en la reciente subida de las pensiones universitarias en Inglaterra, nos daremos cuenta que las tijeras presupuestales siempre cortan por el mismo lado. Los programas sociales, educación, salud, pensiones, subsidios, etc. Para nada se toca la parte del erario que paga a las corporaciones. ¿Como es entonces que se dice que todos tenemos que ajustarnos los cinturones?. ¿Será acaso por que a los que adelgazan, es a los que se les caen los pantalones? Todo parece indicar que esa es la única razón lógica! Una lógica que para nada piensa en el futuro. en un país como Inglaterra, donde hay poca movilidad social (término que los sociólogos deben adorar), se entiende; pero en un país como los Estados Unidos, donde el progreso social y económico individual es una característica de la propia sociedad; esto es inaceptable. Inglaterra tendrá que pagar en un futuro, las consecuencias de que extranjeros vengan a su país a ocupar los puestos que requieren una educación, tal vez otorgada en otros países con subsidios. Esto para no mencionar el enorme choque cultural que les causa a los ingleses la presencia de gentes de otras razas y religiones. En el futuro habrá un seguro crecimiento de la xenofobia y la discriminación, donde sectores empobrecidos de la población darán oídos a prédicas radicales. Ha pasado en la historia reciente, o acaso nadie se acuerda de Alemania en los años 20, y de este Austriaco con el bigotito gracioso, a lo Charles Chaplin!
Volviendo al tema de los EE.UU, no es absolutamente cierto que las medidas económicas de la administración Obama no han funcionado. Hay que diferenciar los hechos de la realidad. Los grandes gastos de reflotar a la industria automotriz y a la banca, no solamente han salvado a estas industrias y a la economía en su conjunto de paso, sino que han terminado devolviendo al erario más dinero del que prestaron. El tema álgido es el desempleo. El empleo crece lentamente, como es de esperarse después de una crisis tan grande, y no crece más rápidamente por dos razones a mi humilde entender: Primero, por que las compañías necesitan, o quieren, recuperar el dinero perdido en la pasada crisis; y Segundo, por a decir de sus propios voceros (los parlamentarios Republicanos), están a la espera de que se les den los incentivos tributarios para invertir. Osea que hay dinero disponible, lo que ocurre es que se esta esperando con el dinero bajo el colchón, a que el gobierno les permita guardarse más dinero en calidad de utilidades del que podrían hacerlo en condiciones normales. Que patrióticos! El llamado alivio fiscal a la clase media incluye a las familias que tienen ingresos que llegan hasta los $250,000 Dólares a año, osea aquellos que en un periodo de diez años generarían 2.5 millones de dólares. Nada mal diría yo. Como dice el presidente Obama, los Republicanos quieren extender un beneficio para aquellos que no lo necesitan, ni lo han pedido.
Hoy en día estas argucias se han llevado en el gobierno hasta el nivel municipal, donde las municipalidades comprometen recursos públicos para construirle a los mal llamados inversionistas privados, los medios para que estos hagan dinero, so pretexto de que los ingresos que generen estos negocios por concepto de impuestos hacen que esta inversión del erario público tenga sentido. Si el dinero no proviene del sector privado, como es que se les sigue llamando inversionistas primero, y privados, segundo. Esta es una financiación sin intereses, primero, y que a veces genera endeudamiento por parte de esas mismas municipalidades, con le consecuente carga en la futura salud fiscal de esas mismas municipalidades. Es uno de esos eufemismos a los que por lo visto tenemos que acostumbrarnos. Tanto como el mal llamado sentido común; que de común no tiene nada.
Con respecto al tema migratorio, hay que entender un poco el fenómeno como una en el que las contradicciones se dan de manera escandalosa. El propio Senador electo de Florida, el Sr. Rubio, es de origen latino. Vaya Usted a preguntarle su opinión sobre las reforma migratoria y verá a que me refiero. El reciente candidato Paladino, a la gobernación de Nueva York, decía abiertamente que los inmigrantes debían regresarse a sus países. Esto. de la boca de un Italo-Americano, como aquellos a los que se les negaban puestos públicos y lugares en las universidades, o se les llamaba despectivamente "pelo grasoso". El fenómeno es común: la vaca no se acuerda cuando era ternera. Aparte de que todo sería mas claro si se reemplazara la palabra inmigrante por la palabra Mexicano. Hay pues un elemento de racismo involucrado que no se quiere aceptar. Por ejemplo, los Republicanos se oponen a que se castigue a las corporaciones que emplean a inmigrantes ilegales. ¿Por que? Simple: por que estas son las más grandes consumidoras de mano de obra ilegal. Y aquí no termina el tema, los pequeños negocios, que a boca de los propios teóricos, son el motor que mueve la economía, son también adictos consumidores de mano de obra ilegal, que pagan barato y en efectivo. En algo si hay que estar de acuerdo con los liberales, y es que el mercado determina esto claramente. Nadie viene a este país a morirse de hambre. Si vienen es por que hay trabajo, osea que el mercado les proporciona ese medio de subsistencia. Quienes se oponen a él, estan pidiendo una intervención estatal incoherente con sus principios. ¿En que quedamos, el estado debe ser pequeño y no intervenir; o es que el estado debe intervenir en lo que nos conviene solamente?
Hay solamente una realidad que subsiste, y que es impermeable al paso del tiempo. El poder. Eso es todo, lo que los republicanos quieren es regresar al gobierno y dirán y harán lo que sea para lograr su objetivo. Hay si una diferencia entre los políticos de una y otra tienda, y es que cuando estos se retiran de la vida pública oficial, hay unos que continúan una vida de servicio público, como Jimmy Carter, o Bill Clinton, y otros que se dedican a disfrutar de su retiro (o a escribir un libro, como Bush).
Coincido pues con Usted, Dr. Mansilla en la percepción de que la dificultad de Obama va a ser sortear a esa oposición que se le presenta hoy en día, y cuyo único propósito es deshacer las reformas de salud y financiera, que si son logros de la administración Obama. La realidad política hace que solo sacando a Obama de la presidencia puedan evitar su veto y la aprobación de cualquier medida que al final liquide las reformas mencionadas. Mitch McConnell, el lider de la minoría Republicana en el Senado ya fue los suficientemente honesto en decirlo públicamente. Esa es la meta. La dificultad, sin embargo es para ambos partidos, que tendrán que explicar al electorado, no de hoy sino dentro del futuro, cuál ha sido el impacto económico de sus políticas públicas, y como es que ellos, y no los otros son merecedores del respaldo popular. Es fácil meterle miedo a unos cuantos cientos de miles de desempleados para que voten de una u otra forma, pero si cuando se pase las leyes que extienden los beneficios de desempleo y seguro médico para los desempleados, los Republicanos votan que cada uno baile son su pañuelo, otra va a ser la tonada de los artículos que escribamos en el futuro.
Otro aspecto a votarse será el alivio financiero para aquellos que sufrieron en la crisis inmobiliaria y si la gente pierde sus casas por las medidas auspiciadas por los Republicanos, otra ves veremos como es que cambia la música. Este tema de la austeridad fiscal es un tema de pose, y no de verdadera convicción. Veamos sino al Alan García del 1985, y al de hoy en día; o al líder sindical Lula, y al Presidente Lula y su política económica. Se miran pues en dos espejos totalmente diferentes. Lo que si no creo es que la expectativa de Obama se ha licuado electoralmente. Este revés es uno común a toda presidencia en las elecciones del término medio; claro que los Republicanos están haciendo más grande la barra que el gol, pero el partido no se acaba todavía y falta mucho por rebanar para las próximas elecciones.
Atentamente,
Francis W. Butters
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Marriage under Roman Law. A precedent to the Institution of Marriage in our time.
Marriage under Roman Law. A precedent to the Institution of Marriage in our time.
After a break, I would like to continue a brief analysis of the Roman Institution of Matrimony. Let’s talk a little about the Juridical Nature, the Requisites, Consent, Status Familiae, Ritual, and Proof of Matrimony:
In the original interpretation of Roman law, matrimony is purely contractual in nature, since the expressed will was a “Conditio sine Quanon”, the will to be together was initially the generator of the link between the man and woman. Later it has been concluded that the condition exists “De Facto” and independently of its origin, regardless of the contractual characteristics of it and will subsists as long as the consent of both man and woman persists. In other words matrimony in Roman Law was the recognition of a status between a man and a woman, and was not generated by the institution, but recognized by it. Nevertheless, as said before, according to Ulpianum, the concubinatum was not equal to matrimony, since the will to share a life and affection together was essential. There were of course several conditions or requisites for this condition of matrimony to exist.
Ius Connubii: Which is the legal capacity to be married (engaged in “Iusta Nuptia”). Only people with the legal capacity to express their will and consent were to be recognized as married. This will exclude non citizens (“status civitatis” required), non pubers, pilgrims (passing by) slaves and barbarians (poor
The requisite of puberty is crucial, since the goal of marriage then was procreation and therefore the spouses to be, had to be able to conceive and/or procreate, to form a family. For example, the castrated were not capable of matrimony. Castration was a practice brought from the Orient and usually practiced with the slaves to care for the women in the house. If you didn’t have the organs, you didn’t qualify.
There were then impediments to matrimony, some of absolute and others of relative nature. There were cases in which matrimony was not possible and others in which it wasn’t possible with certain people. Absolutely you couldn’t marry if you were a relative ascendant or descendant (direct blood line), or a non puber (not reached puberty), castrated, and married to somebody else or a widow before a year of mourning. You couldn’t marry also if you were deemed mentally ill (“mente captus”), or if you were subject to a tutor, curator and not legally free to express your will.
Relatively you couldn’t marry if you were a relative of certain sort or adopted (between adopted parent and son or daughter), between stepson and stepdaughter with a widowed or divorced stepparent. Religious diversity was never an impediment to matrimony in the
Affectio maritalis: In regards to expressing consent the marriage had to be real and not simulated, there had to be “affectio maritalis” (affection between the spouses); not subject to error in regards to the identity of the contracting parties. You couldn’t be subject to “patria potestas”, verbis gratia, you couldn’t be an “alieni iuris” (lacking of legal will) or a “sui juris” (subject to the will of other). If so, the consent of the one holding the “patria potestas” (authority of the father) could be expressed a posteriori, correcting any void in the legality of the will of one or both of the spouses, by confirming or ratifying the act.
If the will of the “pater familias” couldn’t be expressed for reason of missing, or prison, or war, or other; the consent had to be expressed by the magistrate after hearing from the curator. If consent was denied by the “pater familias”, in the case of a woman, the magistrate could authorize it. In the case of a man the prohibition held since no one could be forced to have an inheritor. Nevertheless, the “pater familias” couldn’t impose matrimony to a “filusfamiliae”, since consent of the contracting parties was essential.
The rites were not essential to the Roman matrimony since the expression of consent was commonly sufficient. Nevertheless and over the years, ceremonies accompanied the matrimony were know as “Deductio in Domun Maritti”, or taking the woman to the home of the man in a procession with friends and family.
There were effects in regards to the condition of the woman, who could be married “cum manu” or “sine manu”, subject to the marital power of the husband or not; and in regard to both there was the “societas vitae”, or life community.
Regardless of the lack of formalities to the matrimony in Roman Law, the precedent is that is always between a man and a woman. When other forms of relationships are been tried to symbolize otherwise it is not historically accurate. The adelphopoiesis is clearly Greek in nature and related to a spiritual brotherhood that has nothing to do with physical contact or relationship. The bible has wrongfully been politically corrected also in regards to this expression of brotherhood as in early Greek versions it refers to “brethren”, used by Jesus himself, referring to those who share the same father, his father, God. Known in Latin as “Ordo ad fratres faciendum”, has never ever had a sexual connotation or recognition of same sex union.
Times have obviously changed and a situation that has consequences has to have a legal frame and those consequences recognized and regulated. Society has to give room for evolution into an institution that might be inspired in matrimony, but is essentially different to what has been traditionally, historically and legally the norm. Let’s make a norm that satisfies the need without changing the institution.
Regards,
Francis W. Butters
Response to the allegation that Same Sex Marriage was accepted by early Christians.
Response to the allegation that Same Sex Marriage was accepted by early Christians.
In the early days of Christianity and as the expansion touched several cultural traditions of the time, many customs might have been accepted. That doesn't mean that what seems to be an interpretation of an icon is in fact the reality of the time. The first Concilium was in Nicea (Currently Turkey), almost 3 centuries after Jesus died. A lot of things happen in 300 hundred years. Even though the references today are in Latin, most likely this was conducted in Greek. Nicea is known to us because of the Catholic Creed we recite, which has the first formal form derived from the first meeting of the Christian Bishops.
Regardless of the accuracy of the interpretation it is a fact that homosexuality was a common practice of those days and both Greek and Romans had male companions, even if married to a woman. Some of these companions where what today we would considered under aged, and therefore illegal (not to mention the immoral part, which would be accepted as abuse by straight and homosexual alike), therefore we cannot conclude based on the case of acceptance at a point in time, as a precedent to our society today. It is a historical reference, without a doubt, but history doesn't always control the present. There was polygamy for most of mankind, and no woman would admit to that as something acceptable. Cannibalism has also been part of human history and today we have to put down our forks regardless of the urges. To base our conclusions in one single act doesn't help anyone's cause, since refutation will come easily.
Moreover, for many the Church is not good example of the best behavior, and regardless of the homosexuality that certainly occurs inside it, it is not the norm and it is not accepted. The issue will continue to be one of civil rights, not one of religious connotations. Rights that have to be expressed civilly by creating a legal institution that recognizes a void in the legislation and grants a status that society will agree with and that will allow relationships to mature and progress in the privacy of their homes as with mine and yours.
I have done a quick research on the matter, and as I suspected it is an opinion or interpretation of one author, John Boswell, which has the clear agenda to "prove" that this relationships were blessed by society, and Church alike. He even translates "adelphopoiesis", a Greek word meaning brother-making as a same sex union; translation and acceptance both rejected by the Greek Orthodox Church.
The fact that Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world of his time holding hands to another man, doesn't mean that we should send a Village boy to David Paetaeus to make him more effective against the Taliban.
Remember I am all for the legalization of civil unions and recognition of a status that will solve the issues at hand. Continue to try to prove that it HAS TO BE MARRIAGE will end up delaying the implementation of something that will ultimately hurt the parts involved.
If you review the “Libro Primo Regularum” from Roman jurist Modestinus you will find a clear definition of Marriage in Roman Law, it literally says: "Nuptiae sunt coniuctio maris et feminae et consortiumomnis vitae, divini et humani iuris communicatio". In the later compilation of Roman Law, Institutions, by Bizantine EmperorJustinian, the definition (De ritu nuptiarum) is as follows: "Nuptiaeautem sive matrimonium est viri et mulieris coniuctio, individuam consuetudinemvitae continens". Ulpianus also recollects that " Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit".
The idea is that regardless of the translation that a contemporary author out to prove a point could provide it is clearly documented what the institution of matrimony meant in the ancient
Francis Butters
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
CAN WE, OR CAN WE NOT?
CAN WE, OR CAN WE NOT?
About the powers of the Federal Government.
In regards to the recent approval of the Health Care Bill and the attempts to impede it to become the law of the land, there is a question on the powers of the Federal Government to do, or impose I should say better; conducts, or even expenses on the People, of the United States of America.
Let me start with the Constitution. The Preamble states:
“We the people of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
On this particular: How do we form a more perfect union, if millions of Americans can only claim to have gained the right to die without medical care? How do we establish justice, if we privilege monetary gain over wellbeing? Carefully note that the founding fathers chose to use the word establish, which means this is not a reality, and that “WE the people” CAN access this justice though the mechanisms established in this same document that we know as our constitution.
Where do we start then? Of course with Article one, Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Now, have WE passed legislation trough the constitutional mechanisms? YES WE HAVE!
Moreover, in Article 1, Section 8, the US Constitution clearly mandates: “The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the Unite States;…” and here comes the key issue: “…but all Duties, Impost and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” What is then General Welfare? We will enter here a debate between Madison and Hamilton that will find adherents on each side of the aisle. Madison defended the position that it is understood in the Constitution that the General Welfare was for the states to obtain, and Hamilton defended the Federal power to impose and spent those taxes in the General Welfare’s benefit. Jefferson thought that the power was restricted to the power to impose taxes and that the General Welfare was the purpose for which those taxes were to be imposed.
The Courts have also had different opinions in regards to the issue of the General Welfare clause. In 1936, United States vs. Butler, the US Supreme Court sided with the idea that the power of the General Welfare clause was granted to impose and spent taxes in matters affecting the national not the local welfare. Justice Owen Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, said that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter to what is in fact the national welfare. Here is where 13 or so Republican State Attorney Generals are aiming. They expect the votes are there (since it is understood that the matter will go all the way up to the Supreme Court) to change the will of the people expressed in Congress.
The history of this issue certainly doesn’t end in 1936. The Supreme Court in 1937, in Helvering vs. Davis, modified and expanded the US vs. Butler Decision in the sense that Congress itself could determine when spending was in the General Welfare. Didn’t this legislation involved a passing though both chambers of Congress? If so, Didn’t Congress already determined by its approval that it is for General Welfare’s? Social Security and Medicare were both passed under this light. Have those ever been repealed by any present or subsequent Congress? Certainly not.
Another argument is the one referring the Commerce Clause. Can the Federal Government impose commerce on the US citizens by forcing us to purchase health insurance? Our republican friends as well as those opposed to the Civil Rights legislation will say no. Is it that absolutely true? Well, the Civil Rights legislation would say that YES WE CAN. How so? If a merchant feels like it is his right to decide not to sell to a customer because he or she is black. Is he on the right side of the law? From the experience, almost any American with or without a legal background will say no, you certainly can’t deny goods or services to anybody for any reason. Therefore, the law can impose business (commerce) on a citizen. There are other examples of impositions like driver’s licenses and car insurance. Even though managed by the states, it is clear that no one in the land is allowed to circulate if they don’t have insurance for their vehicles, and are subject to fines if they don’t.
There is a lot of politics being played with this issue as with any other in our time: name calling, fund raising, publicity seeking, etc. Sarah Paling is the recipient of the best investment of the Republican National Committee. She received $100,000 Dollars in wardrobe money, and now she is going to be paid a million dollars and episode for her TV show. Not to mention that regardless of all the complaints of the McCain people during the campaign, she is coming to the rescue. She might not know what newspapers she reads (if any,) or she might need to be portrayed as an Alaskan Shiva Goddess to fit everything in the palms of her hands, but she comes now pretty handy to reinforce our Vietnam hero.
Pat Buchanan said today in regards to the Republicans being the party of No: “We are the party of the HELL NO!” We know now where the chips are on the betting table. Let’s see if the American people are willing to bet against their own interest.
Alexander Hamilton said in Federal #1: “It has been frequently remarked that is seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force”, and he continues to say, “If there be any truth in the remark the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind”. Finally a quote that I regard as precious: “Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interest, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good.”
There are then some mayor philosophical and political questions to be added to the minutiae of the every day exchange of fire, not to mention the strategic regression of going back to the trench warfare in the age of satellites and drones. Our friends have chosen to dig in and hold a line that pretends to go nowhere. They are counting on fear to get them the votes they need to go back to power. That is all, there is no such a thing as a concern with the American People, only with their ability to cling to the next majority. There has been little said about the Government’s stake on the Citi-Group shares, which sales will provide the Treasury with eight billion dollars more than the ones invested. The republican are in no way interested in discussing or arguing that case. Many of the statements are not even followed by questions. It is a hit and run.
Finally we can conclude that by either and both clauses of the constitution or what my Union brothers would call “Past Practice” (previous legislation in this case) is possible to do what Congress has just done. Yes Congress can mandate on commerce, and yes the general welfare can be invoked. There is a duty of every citizen to form a more perfect union, establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty. The means are at our hand, and despite off the tricornes worn by the Tea Party enthusiast, the real revolutionary spirit is in changing that which needs to be changed in order to attain our original goals as a society. Thomas Paine said in Common sense that “(society) promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections…(and government) negatively by restraining our vices”. Greed is certainly a vice or our system.
Francis Butters
About the powers of the Federal Government.
In regards to the recent approval of the Health Care Bill and the attempts to impede it to become the law of the land, there is a question on the powers of the Federal Government to do, or impose I should say better; conducts, or even expenses on the People, of the United States of America.
Let me start with the Constitution. The Preamble states:
“We the people of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
On this particular: How do we form a more perfect union, if millions of Americans can only claim to have gained the right to die without medical care? How do we establish justice, if we privilege monetary gain over wellbeing? Carefully note that the founding fathers chose to use the word establish, which means this is not a reality, and that “WE the people” CAN access this justice though the mechanisms established in this same document that we know as our constitution.
Where do we start then? Of course with Article one, Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Now, have WE passed legislation trough the constitutional mechanisms? YES WE HAVE!
Moreover, in Article 1, Section 8, the US Constitution clearly mandates: “The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the Unite States;…” and here comes the key issue: “…but all Duties, Impost and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” What is then General Welfare? We will enter here a debate between Madison and Hamilton that will find adherents on each side of the aisle. Madison defended the position that it is understood in the Constitution that the General Welfare was for the states to obtain, and Hamilton defended the Federal power to impose and spent those taxes in the General Welfare’s benefit. Jefferson thought that the power was restricted to the power to impose taxes and that the General Welfare was the purpose for which those taxes were to be imposed.
The Courts have also had different opinions in regards to the issue of the General Welfare clause. In 1936, United States vs. Butler, the US Supreme Court sided with the idea that the power of the General Welfare clause was granted to impose and spent taxes in matters affecting the national not the local welfare. Justice Owen Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, said that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter to what is in fact the national welfare. Here is where 13 or so Republican State Attorney Generals are aiming. They expect the votes are there (since it is understood that the matter will go all the way up to the Supreme Court) to change the will of the people expressed in Congress.
The history of this issue certainly doesn’t end in 1936. The Supreme Court in 1937, in Helvering vs. Davis, modified and expanded the US vs. Butler Decision in the sense that Congress itself could determine when spending was in the General Welfare. Didn’t this legislation involved a passing though both chambers of Congress? If so, Didn’t Congress already determined by its approval that it is for General Welfare’s? Social Security and Medicare were both passed under this light. Have those ever been repealed by any present or subsequent Congress? Certainly not.
Another argument is the one referring the Commerce Clause. Can the Federal Government impose commerce on the US citizens by forcing us to purchase health insurance? Our republican friends as well as those opposed to the Civil Rights legislation will say no. Is it that absolutely true? Well, the Civil Rights legislation would say that YES WE CAN. How so? If a merchant feels like it is his right to decide not to sell to a customer because he or she is black. Is he on the right side of the law? From the experience, almost any American with or without a legal background will say no, you certainly can’t deny goods or services to anybody for any reason. Therefore, the law can impose business (commerce) on a citizen. There are other examples of impositions like driver’s licenses and car insurance. Even though managed by the states, it is clear that no one in the land is allowed to circulate if they don’t have insurance for their vehicles, and are subject to fines if they don’t.
There is a lot of politics being played with this issue as with any other in our time: name calling, fund raising, publicity seeking, etc. Sarah Paling is the recipient of the best investment of the Republican National Committee. She received $100,000 Dollars in wardrobe money, and now she is going to be paid a million dollars and episode for her TV show. Not to mention that regardless of all the complaints of the McCain people during the campaign, she is coming to the rescue. She might not know what newspapers she reads (if any,) or she might need to be portrayed as an Alaskan Shiva Goddess to fit everything in the palms of her hands, but she comes now pretty handy to reinforce our Vietnam hero.
Pat Buchanan said today in regards to the Republicans being the party of No: “We are the party of the HELL NO!” We know now where the chips are on the betting table. Let’s see if the American people are willing to bet against their own interest.
Alexander Hamilton said in Federal #1: “It has been frequently remarked that is seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force”, and he continues to say, “If there be any truth in the remark the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind”. Finally a quote that I regard as precious: “Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interest, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good.”
There are then some mayor philosophical and political questions to be added to the minutiae of the every day exchange of fire, not to mention the strategic regression of going back to the trench warfare in the age of satellites and drones. Our friends have chosen to dig in and hold a line that pretends to go nowhere. They are counting on fear to get them the votes they need to go back to power. That is all, there is no such a thing as a concern with the American People, only with their ability to cling to the next majority. There has been little said about the Government’s stake on the Citi-Group shares, which sales will provide the Treasury with eight billion dollars more than the ones invested. The republican are in no way interested in discussing or arguing that case. Many of the statements are not even followed by questions. It is a hit and run.
Finally we can conclude that by either and both clauses of the constitution or what my Union brothers would call “Past Practice” (previous legislation in this case) is possible to do what Congress has just done. Yes Congress can mandate on commerce, and yes the general welfare can be invoked. There is a duty of every citizen to form a more perfect union, establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty. The means are at our hand, and despite off the tricornes worn by the Tea Party enthusiast, the real revolutionary spirit is in changing that which needs to be changed in order to attain our original goals as a society. Thomas Paine said in Common sense that “(society) promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections…(and government) negatively by restraining our vices”. Greed is certainly a vice or our system.
Francis Butters
Friday, July 24, 2009
Economy and profit.
The Dow Jones is up and the main financing firms(the only two left) in Wall Street, are showing profits. Nevertheless several indicators of the economy don't seem to show or reflect the otherwise positive figures. The question is why?
Without even trying to claim a pundit evaluation, I can only comment on what I can see at a lower level. America is trying to do more with less people. Even when they are trying to buy cheaper, the prices are rising. The salaries are disappearing(for those who are laid off). The times in which purveyors are being paid, is being extended (effectively converting suppliers into credit lenders); sizes of goods are being reduced and prices increased. All these little dirty tricks with only one thing in mind, evading the consequences of the recession. Transferring the burden of the impact on the little guy. Precisely the one that in not equipped to resist and overcome the hit.
Over the years we have been fed with the mantra that the economy is directly related to how well the rich are doing. If they do well, the overflow somehow will shower down on us. I think it's a myth. At least reality does not corroborate the theory. There is also the pernicious link between the economy and the market. There is a link indeed, but how is the market going to do well, if resources are pulled out of it, and vast sectors of it are not involved in the return part of the productive process.
People that are out of work are not in the market. They will spend less and cut on their non essentials. They will change their habits and become more frugal. All good, but to an economy that is expected to move on the stimulus of the demand. If people do not buy, that means immediately that somebody is not selling. That that same seller is not paying for the goods on time, or that is ordering less than before. He might be late with other expenses too. The banks suffer, commerce altogether is affected.
In a business that I follow closely, the so called human element starts to play a part as well. Employees are being laid off, and the ones that stay are making more money. Overtime is available and gladly received by those who think that being the only ones who eat is a good thing. A couple of days ago I explained an old medieval concept to an emigrant from Asia. It is the idea of a defensive position in the Motte and Bailey Castle. This 11th. Century principle is very simple. you have a castle surrounded by a fence and a channel that with water, separates you from the attacking enemy. Between the castle and the fence is the town, an of course a place for the horses. Being the armed cavalry a very important part of medieval combat, the protection of the horses and the knights that ride them becomes vital. There is a price to pay though. You have to feed those inside the fence. Them being the first line of defense, it is important that not only they are fed, but in good condition to fight. The Castle usually will have another barrier, or fence, but the first line is vital to resist any assault.
I believe that we are strong in numbers. And without those numbers, there is no feudal lord that will effectively hold a position, vital to hold his land and tittle. The same way I see the economy today, and firmly believe that if there is not a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms of war and finance, there is no much time left for the barons to hold their castles.
The problem today is that there is a gap between that idea of the fighting baron an the current wealthy. There is no fighting qualities, no backbone. No sense of how to rule that wealth because they believe they are immune to the assaults and a sense of entitlement that is nauseating. That the little guys are expendable and there will be more behind those who fall on the defense of the very week walls of their present lives.
My father used to say that never give and order that you are not willing to obey yourself. He was very clear in his idea that leadership has to involve risk, if success is what you are looking for.
If this divorce continues between wealth and the working class, there will be less and less people in this active market economy that the pundits believe will fix everything. And then what?
Francis W. Butters
* you need an archeologist to find a motte and bailey castle today.
Without even trying to claim a pundit evaluation, I can only comment on what I can see at a lower level. America is trying to do more with less people. Even when they are trying to buy cheaper, the prices are rising. The salaries are disappearing(for those who are laid off). The times in which purveyors are being paid, is being extended (effectively converting suppliers into credit lenders); sizes of goods are being reduced and prices increased. All these little dirty tricks with only one thing in mind, evading the consequences of the recession. Transferring the burden of the impact on the little guy. Precisely the one that in not equipped to resist and overcome the hit.
Over the years we have been fed with the mantra that the economy is directly related to how well the rich are doing. If they do well, the overflow somehow will shower down on us. I think it's a myth. At least reality does not corroborate the theory. There is also the pernicious link between the economy and the market. There is a link indeed, but how is the market going to do well, if resources are pulled out of it, and vast sectors of it are not involved in the return part of the productive process.
People that are out of work are not in the market. They will spend less and cut on their non essentials. They will change their habits and become more frugal. All good, but to an economy that is expected to move on the stimulus of the demand. If people do not buy, that means immediately that somebody is not selling. That that same seller is not paying for the goods on time, or that is ordering less than before. He might be late with other expenses too. The banks suffer, commerce altogether is affected.
In a business that I follow closely, the so called human element starts to play a part as well. Employees are being laid off, and the ones that stay are making more money. Overtime is available and gladly received by those who think that being the only ones who eat is a good thing. A couple of days ago I explained an old medieval concept to an emigrant from Asia. It is the idea of a defensive position in the Motte and Bailey Castle. This 11th. Century principle is very simple. you have a castle surrounded by a fence and a channel that with water, separates you from the attacking enemy. Between the castle and the fence is the town, an of course a place for the horses. Being the armed cavalry a very important part of medieval combat, the protection of the horses and the knights that ride them becomes vital. There is a price to pay though. You have to feed those inside the fence. Them being the first line of defense, it is important that not only they are fed, but in good condition to fight. The Castle usually will have another barrier, or fence, but the first line is vital to resist any assault.
I believe that we are strong in numbers. And without those numbers, there is no feudal lord that will effectively hold a position, vital to hold his land and tittle. The same way I see the economy today, and firmly believe that if there is not a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms of war and finance, there is no much time left for the barons to hold their castles.
The problem today is that there is a gap between that idea of the fighting baron an the current wealthy. There is no fighting qualities, no backbone. No sense of how to rule that wealth because they believe they are immune to the assaults and a sense of entitlement that is nauseating. That the little guys are expendable and there will be more behind those who fall on the defense of the very week walls of their present lives.
My father used to say that never give and order that you are not willing to obey yourself. He was very clear in his idea that leadership has to involve risk, if success is what you are looking for.
If this divorce continues between wealth and the working class, there will be less and less people in this active market economy that the pundits believe will fix everything. And then what?
Francis W. Butters
* you need an archeologist to find a motte and bailey castle today.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
LA GUERRA DE LOS SIETE AÑOS 1756-1763
Estimados amigos:
Hoy, hojeando un libro sobre constucciones navales, me tope con una referencia a la Guerra de los 7 años (1756-1763), que se iniciara con la invasion de Sajonia por parte de Federico II de Prusia. Esta que fue la "Primera Guerra Mundial" realmente (ya que se peleó en América, Asia y Europa; y reconocida como tal por el propio Winston Churchill, cuyo antepasado, Charles Spencer, tercer Duque de Malborough, comamdó las tropas terrestres en la invasión anfibia de Francia en 1758). Al igual que la que lleva el nombre propiamente dicho, fue un conflicto entre los poderes coloniales de su época (Prusia, Austria, Rusia, Francia, Inglaterra, Protugal, Suecia, Holanda, España) . Interesante el tema por que incluye las acciones en norteamérica en la llamada Guerra Franco-India, donde participó el propio George Washington y se foguearon algunos de los oficiales que luego participarían en la Independencia Americana. El padre del Marqués de Lafayette murió en este conflicto, e Inglaterra termino victoriosa como la potencia Naval de su tiempo, expulsando a los franceses de la India (que inició La Compagnie Française des Indes Orientales, creada por Richelieu) recuperando Menorca, haciendose de las colonias azucareras en el Caribe y tomando todo el territorio al este del Mississippi con excepción de Nueva Orleans. Florida dejó de ser dominio Español, lo mismo que Quebéq dejó de ser Francés, y las trece colonias americanas se unieron en parte tambien como reacción a las leyes que limitaban su expansión más alla de los Montes Apalaches (Proclamación de Jorge III de 1763).
El conflicto en si mismo puede tomar una vida de estudio y análisis, cosa que no pretendo hacer en un espacio y tiempo tan pequeño. Solo quiero rescatar un hecho que se refiere a la primera accion de Inglaterra en el Mediterraneo y a otro que le siguó en el Caribe, y de como quedo todo después de que la pólvora se disipó.
El capítulo empieza con el ataque Francés de la posesión Inglesa de la Isla de Menorca (el conflicto había empezado dos años antes en el Nuevo Mundo), estratégicamente ubicada en el mediterraneo. Las fuerzas Francesas, al mando del Marqués de Galissonniere bloquearon a la guarnición Inglesa, motivando una expedición al mando del Almirante Inglés John Byng, que con 12 buques y 7 fragatas se efrentó a la flota Francesa, tambien de 12 buques y 5 fragatas un 20 de Mayo de 1756.
Al margen del balance de la batalla naval (menos de 500 bajas entre muertos y heridos entre ambos lados) que parecerían ridículos al lado de los detalles en los últimos conflictos, este hecho histórico se recuerda por la Corte Marcial y posterior ejecución del Almirante Byng, por no haber "hecho lo suficiente" para recuperar el control de la isla. Byng dirigió a su propio pelotón de fusilamiento al dejar caer un pañuelo de su mano derecha. La ejecusión se hizo en la cubierta de su propio barco.
En 1762, algunos años más tarde, la flota Inglesa, reforzada con tropas coloniales americanas, ataca la Habana y toma Cuba. Semanas despues cae Manila.
Como dije antes, el tema es larguísmo, y sin duda interesante, pero me gustaría saltar un poco de este otro evento bélico, al Tratado de París de 1763. En este documento los Franceses devuelven Menorca a los Ingleses y estos devuelven Cuba a los Españoles. El tratado de Hubertusburg que pone fin al conflicto del lado europeo, regresa las fronteras al estado ante bellum. Osea que la muerte de Byng, como de cientos de miles de personas (1´400,000 según algunos cálculos) no sirvió sino para acomodar los intereses de unos pocos.
Conclusión y moraleja:
Los preparativos de hoy con miras a las elecciones del 2011 generan animos bélicos entre nosotros (y alguno que no merece ser incluido en este último término), y más de uno quiere armar su pelotón de fusilamiento antes de tiempo. Se lanzan acusaciones o se buscan culpables y traidores. Nadie tiene un pedacito de terreno que defender exitosamente (con la excepción de los 4 parlamentarios que si tienen algo que mostrar), pero si se quiere repartir un territorio que ni se tiene ni se va a tener. Los que azuzan estas movidas son precisamente los que no tienen nada que defender u ofrecer.
El fin de esta "historia" nuestra tiene que ver, como todo otro momento histórico, con que "territorio" sostiene cada uno. Y al final se decidirá como queda todo en el campo "diplomático" . Las definiciones no se harán en le campo de batalla. Menos aún si la batalla tiene que tener como antecedente el arreglo de quien se queda con que, antes de que empieze.
Cualquier estratega, aún cuando empieze su análisis desde un mercado, tiene que tener muy en cuenta el terriitorio con que cuenta antes del conflicto. Que va a defender, que va a ganar, y hasta que está dispuesto a ceder a cambio de otra ganancia o sostenimiento de territorio adquido anteriormente. Lo que no se puede permitir es el caos. No nos podemos dar ese lujo. Todo aquel que genere o incremente el desorden debe ser pasado a "la plancha". El Dr. García Belaunde, como estudioso de la Historia y ex cadete naval, sabe a que me refiero, y me dirijo a él como Presidente del Partido. Hay mucho desorden y hay pocos recursos. Lo que no podemos hacer es darnos el lujo de perder el tiempo. No vamos a pasar de una guerra de barcos de madera a otra de trincheras. No nos vamos a cañonear desde cloacas para no avanzar ni un milímetro. Eso es bastante tonto. La historia se repite solo entre los que se esfuerzan en ignorarla.
Algo debemos aprender de la historia, a menos que claro se repita como el castrati "O che sciagura d´essere senza coglioni!"*
Atentamente,
Francis W. Butters
* Candide, Voltaire.
Admiral John Byng.
ADELANTE
Nueva York, 04 de Junio del 2002.
ADELANTE!
Como empezar a hablar de Fernando Belaunde sin recordar esta, sino la única, la primera palabra con que debería empezar toda remembranza de uno de los peruanos más ilustres de todos los tiempos. Un hombre que supo dejar sus enseñanzas y su imagen imperecedera en cada rincón de nuestra patria. No hubo, ni seguramente habrá, otro presidente en nuestra historia que tuviera mejor conocimiento y experiencia de nuestra geografía. El gesto de la mano en alto, que funde una voluntad, una pasión y una esperanza, “el Perú”, estará siempre unido al legado de progreso y visión de futuro que nos deja el ex presidente. El Arquitecto no miró hacia atrás, sus ojos no se despegaban del horizonte.
Desde las aguas del Callao, hasta los meandros del río Amazonas; desde Madre de Dios, hasta falso Paquisha, habrá siempre una memoria, una anécdota, una fotografía, una frase inspiradora que nos recuerde lo maravilloso que es nuestro país. Un peruano que le contará a sus hijos que Fernando Belaunde fue el primer, y tal vez el único presidente del Perú que visitó su pueblo; o que tal vez se hospedó en su casa durante alguno de sus incansables recorridos por nuestro territorio.
Poseedor de un espíritu indomable, quiso fugar a nado del Frontón, en las gélidas aguas del Callao. Se batió a duelo con el Diputado Watson. Se enfrentó a las tropas de Odria para reclamar la inscripción de su candidatura, armado solo con el bicolor nacional. Transformó una pedrada en la frente, en la Plaza de Armas del Cuzco, durante una de sus primeras campañas, en un discurso de victoria. Visitó a nuestros soldados en el PV22 inmediatamente después de los enfrentamientos con las tropas ecuatorianas en 1981. Rescato a los exploradores de una prospección petrolera en Madre de Dios, después de un ataque en el que indígenas que dejaron a uno de los ingenieros con una flecha atravesada en el hombro.
Belaunde trascendió las fronteras de la tierra que lo vio nacer, he hizo que su calidad de estadista lo llevara a estrechar las manos del Presidente Chileno Eduardo Frey, y demostrar una vez más su reconocida elocuencia en la Conferencia de Punta del Este, en su primer gobierno. Acudió en auxilio de Raúl Alfonsín, presidente Argentino, durante el conflicto anglo-argentino por las islas Malvinas; y, remontando el Paso del Casiquiare, demostró la unión de las cuencas del Amazonas y el Orinoco, para estrechar la Mano del presidente Herrera Campins, en Venezuela.
A Fernando Belaunde el político, a quien tuve el privilegio de conocer en Lima, cuando yo tenía solo 20 años, lo describirán mejor quienes han hecho de la historia una profesión. A Fernando Belaunde el maestro, al que solía escuchar en la Asociación Perú, cada Lunes por la noche, lo recordaré por siempre. El mejor cumplido será tal vez dedicar un día más a trabajar por el Perú, en vez de dejar de hacerlo. Recordemos que Belaunde rescató el culto al trabajo, como rector y angular de la trilogía andina de la honestidad, veracidad y laboriosidad.
Su adorada Violeta lo precedió, en este camino que por fuerza debemos todos recorrer. La tristeza lo hirió mortalmente. La agilidad de un espíritu inquieto, la mente de un visionario, la hidalguía de un caballero, la integridad de un señor. Ese será el ejemplo del hombre, del que escuche por primera ves, cuando niño, de labios de mi padre, el Ingeniero Francis Butters Urteaga, ex alumno de la UNI, que escuchó a Belaunde en las aulas. Años más tarde, tuve el privilegio de conocerlo personalmente en Palacio de Gobierno, en una de tantas giras los fines de semana con la Primera Dama, con motivo de las inauguraciones de las cocinas familiares; que se construyeron por el Grupo de Apoyo de Palacio de Gobierno que ella presidiera. Años más tarde lo visité en su apartamento, con la emoción de cualquier joven que es recibido en la sala de un ex presidente del Perú. Estaba conmigo Rafael Ibárcena; cuyo padre, también Ingeniero, se casaría años más tarde con Carito, la hija de Don Fernando. Con cariño, organicé un poco su biblioteca en la Asociación Perú, incluyendo los muchos rollos de película que hiciera mi tío Franklin Urteaga, desde su compañía de Sucesos Peruanos, durante el periodo 1963-1968.
El jefe, como lo llamamos cariñosamente los de Acción Popular, ha acudido al llamado del altísimo, como él solía referirse a Dios; quien seguramente habrá dicho: “monsieur Belaunde, a la porte” (así lo llamaban, en francés, sus maestros en Paris). No me cabe duda, que con la mirada limpia, y el caminar sereno, don Fernando ha respondido “adelante”.
A Francisco, su hermano; a Rafael, Fernando y Carito, sus hijos, así como a sus nietos y demás familiares, mi más sentido pésame.
Atentamente.
Francis William Butters Rivadeneira
francisbutters@aol.com
ADELANTE!
Como empezar a hablar de Fernando Belaunde sin recordar esta, sino la única, la primera palabra con que debería empezar toda remembranza de uno de los peruanos más ilustres de todos los tiempos. Un hombre que supo dejar sus enseñanzas y su imagen imperecedera en cada rincón de nuestra patria. No hubo, ni seguramente habrá, otro presidente en nuestra historia que tuviera mejor conocimiento y experiencia de nuestra geografía. El gesto de la mano en alto, que funde una voluntad, una pasión y una esperanza, “el Perú”, estará siempre unido al legado de progreso y visión de futuro que nos deja el ex presidente. El Arquitecto no miró hacia atrás, sus ojos no se despegaban del horizonte.
Desde las aguas del Callao, hasta los meandros del río Amazonas; desde Madre de Dios, hasta falso Paquisha, habrá siempre una memoria, una anécdota, una fotografía, una frase inspiradora que nos recuerde lo maravilloso que es nuestro país. Un peruano que le contará a sus hijos que Fernando Belaunde fue el primer, y tal vez el único presidente del Perú que visitó su pueblo; o que tal vez se hospedó en su casa durante alguno de sus incansables recorridos por nuestro territorio.
Poseedor de un espíritu indomable, quiso fugar a nado del Frontón, en las gélidas aguas del Callao. Se batió a duelo con el Diputado Watson. Se enfrentó a las tropas de Odria para reclamar la inscripción de su candidatura, armado solo con el bicolor nacional. Transformó una pedrada en la frente, en la Plaza de Armas del Cuzco, durante una de sus primeras campañas, en un discurso de victoria. Visitó a nuestros soldados en el PV22 inmediatamente después de los enfrentamientos con las tropas ecuatorianas en 1981. Rescato a los exploradores de una prospección petrolera en Madre de Dios, después de un ataque en el que indígenas que dejaron a uno de los ingenieros con una flecha atravesada en el hombro.
Belaunde trascendió las fronteras de la tierra que lo vio nacer, he hizo que su calidad de estadista lo llevara a estrechar las manos del Presidente Chileno Eduardo Frey, y demostrar una vez más su reconocida elocuencia en la Conferencia de Punta del Este, en su primer gobierno. Acudió en auxilio de Raúl Alfonsín, presidente Argentino, durante el conflicto anglo-argentino por las islas Malvinas; y, remontando el Paso del Casiquiare, demostró la unión de las cuencas del Amazonas y el Orinoco, para estrechar la Mano del presidente Herrera Campins, en Venezuela.
A Fernando Belaunde el político, a quien tuve el privilegio de conocer en Lima, cuando yo tenía solo 20 años, lo describirán mejor quienes han hecho de la historia una profesión. A Fernando Belaunde el maestro, al que solía escuchar en la Asociación Perú, cada Lunes por la noche, lo recordaré por siempre. El mejor cumplido será tal vez dedicar un día más a trabajar por el Perú, en vez de dejar de hacerlo. Recordemos que Belaunde rescató el culto al trabajo, como rector y angular de la trilogía andina de la honestidad, veracidad y laboriosidad.
Su adorada Violeta lo precedió, en este camino que por fuerza debemos todos recorrer. La tristeza lo hirió mortalmente. La agilidad de un espíritu inquieto, la mente de un visionario, la hidalguía de un caballero, la integridad de un señor. Ese será el ejemplo del hombre, del que escuche por primera ves, cuando niño, de labios de mi padre, el Ingeniero Francis Butters Urteaga, ex alumno de la UNI, que escuchó a Belaunde en las aulas. Años más tarde, tuve el privilegio de conocerlo personalmente en Palacio de Gobierno, en una de tantas giras los fines de semana con la Primera Dama, con motivo de las inauguraciones de las cocinas familiares; que se construyeron por el Grupo de Apoyo de Palacio de Gobierno que ella presidiera. Años más tarde lo visité en su apartamento, con la emoción de cualquier joven que es recibido en la sala de un ex presidente del Perú. Estaba conmigo Rafael Ibárcena; cuyo padre, también Ingeniero, se casaría años más tarde con Carito, la hija de Don Fernando. Con cariño, organicé un poco su biblioteca en la Asociación Perú, incluyendo los muchos rollos de película que hiciera mi tío Franklin Urteaga, desde su compañía de Sucesos Peruanos, durante el periodo 1963-1968.
El jefe, como lo llamamos cariñosamente los de Acción Popular, ha acudido al llamado del altísimo, como él solía referirse a Dios; quien seguramente habrá dicho: “monsieur Belaunde, a la porte” (así lo llamaban, en francés, sus maestros en Paris). No me cabe duda, que con la mirada limpia, y el caminar sereno, don Fernando ha respondido “adelante”.
A Francisco, su hermano; a Rafael, Fernando y Carito, sus hijos, así como a sus nietos y demás familiares, mi más sentido pésame.
Atentamente.
Francis William Butters Rivadeneira
francisbutters@aol.com
Foto del Dominical del Diario el Comercio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
